Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-24-2017 3:12 PM
407 online now:
Coragyps, dwise1, jar, JonF, kjsimons, PaulK, RAZD, Tangle (8 members, 399 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,021 Year: 16,627/21,208 Month: 2,516/3,593 Week: 629/882 Day: 61/86 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Author Topic:   Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 16 of 119 (711063)
11-14-2013 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by mindspawn
11-14-2013 5:00 PM


Re: Another try?
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.

This is just absolute nonsense.

You expect us to believe that all of the different elements that go into the calibration curve are all wrong, for a variety of different reasons, in the exact same manner?

Tree-rings in California and Europe, lake and glacial varves in a variety of locations, spelothems, and corals are all wrong but still give the same answers!

If you want to get serious let me know. Otherwise, your just wasting our time.


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 15 by mindspawn, posted 11-14-2013 5:00 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by mindspawn, posted 11-15-2013 2:42 AM Coyote has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 17 of 119 (711095)
11-15-2013 2:42 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Coyote
11-14-2013 5:21 PM


Re: Another try?
This is just absolute nonsense.

You expect us to believe that all of the different elements that go into the calibration curve are all wrong, for a variety of different reasons, in the exact same manner?

Tree-rings in California and Europe, lake and glacial varves in a variety of locations, spelothems, and corals are all wrong but still give the same answers!

If you want to get serious let me know. Otherwise, your just wasting our time.

Its not a variety of reasons, 4 of those locations are precipitation sensitive. That's one reason. The half-life of Uranium-Thorium is not independently established in a laboratory, but measured against existing dating methods and so is bound to evolutionary assumptions and this explains the consilience in the other 3 locations. Uranium-Thorium dating even calibrates against radiocarbon dating and so these dates become meaningless as independent verifiction of radiocarbon dates.

Weather occurs in cycles and patterns, eg cold fronts. It logical that there would be approximately the same number of major precipitation events every year, and so the consilience is not unrealistic.

Of all the locations in the world which have definite seasonal patterns, scientists have specifically found 4 locations that are precipitation sensitive rather than seasonal sensitive to find their consilience. Just this puts the whole consilience under doubt, due to the nature of the locations used contradicting the annual requirement of the layers:
1) White Mountain bristlecone pines are precipitation sensitive and the location has very dry soil. I challenge you to explain to me how the wood continues to grow between rainfalls in an area of dry soils.
2) Lake Suigetsu is fed by a river in a small catchment area. I challenge you to explain to me how layers of sediment wash into a lake in seasonal patterns without a high degree of sensitivity to each significant rainfall
3) Ice cores are precipitation sensitive, each large snowfall/rainfall would by its very nature create a layer, please explain why those layers are annual and not sensitive to each major precipitation during the year.
4) Lake Lisan was also in a dry area, please explain why each rainfall in a semi-desert region does not form a layer of sediment. In wet regions sediment flows in rivers and lakes show seasonal patterns, due to saturated water tables allowing continuity of the flow between rainfalls. This seasonal effect is lessened in dry areas which are more sensitive to each and every rainfall.

Unfortunately for you those locations definitely favor 11-12 layers a year consistent with precipitation, rather than one layer a year. You need a stronger argument than consilience to counter my argument of precipitation sensitivity of those locations, which explains the consilience due to consistent worldwide rainfall patterns.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Coyote, posted 11-14-2013 5:21 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2013 3:45 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2013 10:24 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2013 2:00 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2013 5:30 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2013 2:41 PM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2013 7:14 PM mindspawn has responded

  
Coyote
Member
Posts: 5863
Joined: 01-12-2008
Member Rating: 4.0


(1)
Message 18 of 119 (711201)
11-15-2013 3:45 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mindspawn
11-15-2013 2:42 AM


Substitute
Since you are leaving the field of radiocarbon dating and descending into various rabbit holes and "what-ifs," RAZD has proposed that he substitute for me in discussing those issues.

If this is acceptable, I will cease participation until those issues are dealt with.


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 17 by mindspawn, posted 11-15-2013 2:42 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by mindspawn, posted 11-16-2013 3:32 AM Coyote has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 19 of 119 (711229)
11-16-2013 3:32 AM
Reply to: Message 18 by Coyote
11-15-2013 3:45 PM


Re: Substitute
I disagree about the rabbit holes and what-ifs.......

But I have no objection to RAZD substituting for you. I see some good points have been made in the peanut gallery, however if I start responding to them here this defeats the objective of a one-on-one discussion, and I only have time for a one-on-one. I am sure RAZD will be bringing some of those points into this discussion which will add spice to this debate.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Coyote, posted 11-15-2013 3:45 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 11-16-2013 8:44 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18656
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 20 of 119 (711236)
11-16-2013 8:44 AM
Reply to: Message 19 by mindspawn
11-16-2013 3:32 AM


Hello mindspawn - let's start with some defs and give me your best shot?
But I have no objection to RAZD substituting for you. ...

Thank you. I will now stop posting on the Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD thread and shift my attention here.

Below are some definitions that I think may be useful in this discussion, as these terms have been used frequently and I want to be sure we mean the same thing when they are used:

ac•cu•ra•cy
[ak-yer-uh-see] noun, plural ac•cu•ra•cies.

  1. the condition or quality of being true, correct, or exact; freedom from error or defect; precision or exactness; correctness.
  2. Chemistry, Physics. the extent to which a given measurement agrees with the standard value for that measurement. Compare precision (def 6).
  3. Mathematics . the degree of correctness of a quantity, expression, etc. Compare precision (def 5).

In scientific use Accuracy means your ability to hit the bulls eye of a target. If we take a bow and shoot 200 arrows at a target, and all the arrow locations average out to a bull's eye, then the average result is very accurate, the closer they cluster to the bull's eye the greater the degree of accuracy, even though there may be significant error in any one shot and there may not even be a single bull's eye in the whole group. There could be a fairly large degree of scatter in the data and still have an accurate overall average result.

pre•ci•sion
[pri-sizh-uhn] noun

  1. the state or quality of being precise.
  2. accuracy; exactness: to arrive at an estimate with precision.
  3. mechanical or scientific exactness: a lens ground with precision.
  4. punctiliousness; strictness: precision in one's business dealings.
  5. Mathematics . the degree to which the correctness of a quantity is expressed. Compare accuracy (def 3).

Again, in scientific usage Precision means the ability to replicate exactly the same results. With our bow and arrow example we now have 200 arrows all clustered very close together, but they may or may not be located near the bull's eye. There is very little scatter in this case, so it is highly precise, as the degree of scatter defines the precision.

As you can see these terms are not quite the same, and ideally we would like to have a system that is both accurate and precise.

con•cord•ance
[kon-kawr-dns] noun

  1. agreement; concord; harmony: the concordance of the membership.
  2. an alphabetical index of the principal words of a book, as of the Bible, with a reference to the passage in which each occurs.
  3. an alphabetical index of subjects or topics.
  4. (in genetic studies) the degree of similarity in a pair of twins with respect to the presence or absence of a particular disease or trait.

concordance would be a general relationship between two or more factors that would result in similar but not identical results.

cor•re•la•tion
[kawr-uh-ley-shuhn, kor-] noun

  1. mutual relation of two or more things, parts, etc.: Studies find a positive correlation between severity of illness and nutritional status of the patients. Synonyms: similarity, correspondence, matching; parallelism, equivalence; interdependence, interrelationship, interconnection.
  2. the act of correlating or state of being correlated.
  3. Statistics. the degree to which two or more attributes or measurements on the same group of elements show a tendency to vary together.
  4. Physiology . the interdependence or reciprocal relations of organs or functions.
  5. Geology . the demonstrable equivalence, in age or lithology, of two or more stratigraphic units, as formations or members of such.

Correlation means taking two or more systems and comparing them to see if they reflect similar results and this is usually shown graphically. Often a "best fit" mathematical curve can be derived to fit the data. A correlation is generally more precise than concordance.

cal•i•brate
[kal-uh-breyt] verb (used with object), cal•i•brated, cal•i•brat•ing.

  1. to determine, check, or rectify the graduation of (any instrument giving quantitative measurements).
  2. to divide or mark with gradations, graduations, or other indexes of degree, quantity, etc., as on a thermometer, measuring cup, or the like.
  3. to determine the correct range for (an artillery gun, mortar, etc.) by observing where the fired projectile hits.
  4. to plan or devise (something) carefully so as to have a precise use, application, appeal, etc.: a sales strategy calibrated to rich investors.

Calibration means taking a precise correlation and determining what needs to be done to correct the precise result to obtain more accurate results.

Another word used in the debate so far is consilience:

quote:
In science and history, consilience (also convergence of evidence or concordance of evidence) refers to the principle that evidence from independent, unrelated sources can "converge" to strong conclusions. That is, when multiple sources of evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very strong even when none of the individual sources of evidence are very strong on their own. Most established scientific knowledge is supported by a convergence of evidence: if not, the evidence is comparatively weak, and there will not likely be a strong scientific consensus.

The principle is based on the unity of knowledge; measuring the same result by several different methods should lead to the same answer. For example, it should not matter whether one measures the distance between the Great Pyramids of Giza by laser rangefinding, by satellite imaging, or with a meter stick - in all three cases, the answer should be approximately the same. For the same reason, different dating methods in geochronology should concur, a result in chemistry should not contradict a result in geology, etc.


Consilience means taking two or more systems that have strong correlations and showing how they all point to the same result, thus consilience is stronger than any single set of evidence or just a correlation between systems in providing evidence of a trend or relationship being correct.

... I see some good points have been made in the peanut gallery, however if I start responding to them here this defeats the objective of a one-on-one discussion, and I only have time for a one-on-one. I am sure RAZD will be bringing some of those points into this discussion which will add spice to this debate.

In a similar vein, my time is limited as well, and you have made a lot of points so far on this thread. Can we take your Message 17 as a summary of your argument to date?

Starting fresh I don't want to respond to the whole post at this point, but if time permits I will answer some of your points. If I get way ahead of you, let me know.

Can you pick what you think is your single best argument in that post, give me a run-down on it and post the evidence that supports it? We can get to the others later.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : finished link to peanut gallery
added clarity to defs
revised order of post

Edited by RAZD, : add concordance


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 19 by mindspawn, posted 11-16-2013 3:32 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18656
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 21 of 119 (711315)
11-17-2013 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by mindspawn
11-15-2013 2:42 AM


Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration
I thought I would deal with one of the more egregious claims you have made, just to get it out of the way first:

Its not a variety of reasons, 4 of those locations are precipitation sensitive. ...

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/ni/print.html

quote:
The seasonal variation of rainfall in Northern Ireland is less marked in the drier southern and eastern areas than in the wetter areas, but in all areas the wettest months are between October and January. This is partly a reflection of the high frequency of winter Atlantic depressions and the relatively low frequency of summer thunderstorms in Northern Ireland. For example, at Armagh, thunder occurs on an average of less than 4 days a year, compared with 15 to 20 days at many places in England. Only in a few locations, mainly away from the coast, does the frequency of thunder exceed 5 days a year.

The course of mean monthly rainfall for 1971-2000 for 4 sites is shown below. The pattern of rainfall is similar at each, with the months October to January the wettest and the late spring and early summer months the driest.

Aldergrove RainfallColerain University RainfallCorgary RainfallSpelga Dam Rainfall

Over much of Northern Ireland, the number of days with a rainfall total of 1mm or more ('wet days') tends to follow a pattern similar to the monthly rainfall totals. In the higher parts, over 55 days is the norm in winter (December to February) and over 45 days in summer (June to August). In the driest areas around Lough Neagh and eastwards to Strangford Lough, less than 45 days in winter and about 35 days in summer are typical.

The combination of close proximity to active weather systems arriving from the Atlantic and the extensive areas of upland can lead to notable daily and monthly falls. The highest fall in a day was 158.9mm at Tollymore Forest (County Down) on 31 October 1968. Periods of prolonged rainfall can lead to widespread flooding. For example, autumn 2000 was the wettest for over 100 years with several flooding episodes and included a fall of 167 mm at Silent Valley (County Down) over 48 hours in early November.


Note that we have 4 places in Northern Ireland where the rainfall occurs with a similar but slightly different total rainfall per month in each place.

Thus the rainfall pattern in Ireland alone is not precisely the same in all locations -- a requirement for your claim of consistent rainfall patterns causing rings instead of annual rings.

Note further, that with the amount of rain in these areas the Oak trees would not be water limited in their growth. This alone is sufficient to invalidate your claim that the rings are due to precipitation rather than annual growth rings

Here are precipitation records for four locations in Germany:

http://www.eldoradocountyweather.com/...te-listings-a-z.html
(note images copied to off-site)

Berlin, GermanyMunich, GermanyPotsdam, GermanySchleswig, Germany

They too are different from each other, and they are different from the Irish records. They also show sufficient rainfall in any one month that the Oak trees would not be water limited in their growth. These records are also sufficient to invalidate your claim that the rings are due to precipitation rather than annual growth rings.

Note that the months of highest rain are in the summer as opposed to Ireland when they were in the winter, and thus the differences between them and the Irish records can be regarded as more than sufficient evidence that this argument is dead.

When we look at the ecology of the White Mountains -- where the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology is found, we have

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/WhiteMts.html

quote:
Located in east central California just north of Death Valley, and on the western edge of the Great Basin, the White Mountains rise to a respectable altitude of 14,246 feet (4342m). Yet they remain in a rain shadow map of the Sierra Nevada located a few miles west across the deep Owens Valley. As Pacific storms move eastward, the Sierra simply takes the majority of moisture, leaving the White Mountains with strong dry winds. Annual precipitation is less than 12 inches (30cm), most of which arrives as snow in winter. On a summer's day the amount of precipital moisture in the air is about half a millimeter, the lowest ever recorded anywhere on earth. ...

Thus it may be valid to claim that growth of the Bristlecone Pine is water limited, however it should be noted that most of the 12" of rain arrives as snow, and thus this water is not available for tree growth until it melts in the spring. As an evergreen (unlike the Oaks which are deciduous) these trees would tend to grow year-round, with the larger cell size growth in the spring, thus making annual rings that are easily discernable.

In all three chronologies the year without a summer was correctly identified as occurring in 1816, a precise and accurate assessment.

In addition, the three dendrochronologies agree with over 99.5% precision for over 8,000 years of record (see Age Correlations thread for details).

Conclusion

The Irish and German Oak dendrochronologies are not based on rainfall patterns as claimed, but on annual growth patterns.

The Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology is based on annual precipitation from snow melting in the spring.

In addition, the two Oak dendrochronologies and the Bristle-cone pine dendrochronology agree within 99.5% for over 8,000 years of record, and this consilience shows we can have a very high degree of confidence that we are dealing with annual rings, rather than precipitation rings, and that they are both accurate and precise.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : <> not ]

Edited by RAZD, : used table for graphics to consolidate post


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 17 by mindspawn, posted 11-15-2013 2:42 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2013 5:58 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18656
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 22 of 119 (711327)
11-17-2013 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mindspawn
11-15-2013 2:42 AM


Ignorance and Misunderstanding - Uranium and Thorium
... The half-life of Uranium-Thorium is not independently established in a laboratory, but measured against existing dating methods and so is bound to evolutionary assumptions and this explains the consilience in the other 3 locations. Uranium-Thorium dating even calibrates against radiocarbon dating and so these dates become meaningless as independent verifiction of radiocarbon dates.

As noted by Percy in Message 50 of the Peanut Gallery for Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote thread there are several misconceptions here:

quote:
mindspawn writes:

The half-life of Uranium-Thorium is not independently established in a laboratory...

... Creationists have a way of cramming huge amounts of misinformation into a small number of words, and the above 13 words are no exception.

  1. "Uranium-Thorium" is a dating method, not an element with a half life.

  2. Uranium is one element, Thorium is another.

  3. Both Uranium and Thorium have a number of isotopes. Isotopes are a family of types of the same element with the same number of protons in the nucleus but different numbers of neutrons. Each isotope will have a different half-life, except for stable isotopes which do not decay and therefore do not have a half-life.

  4. The Uranium referred to is 234U with a half-life of 245,000 years.

  5. The Thorium referred to is 230Th with a half life of 75,000 years.

  6. The half-lives of both 234U and 230Th have been measured in the laboratory.

Fortunately, ignorance and scientific illiteracy are curable by learning -- Uranium decays into Thorium, so this is basically a parent-daughter dating system, albeit complicated by Thorium decay, and information on this is easily found:

wiki - Uranium-Thorium

quote:
Uranium-thorium dating, also called thorium-230 dating, uranium-series disequilibrium dating or uranium-series dating, is a radiometric dating technique commonly used to determine the age of calcium carbonate materials such as speleothem or coral.[1] Unlike other commonly used radiometric dating techniques such as rubidium-strontium or uranium-lead dating, the uranium-thorium technique does not measure accumulation of a stable end-member decay product. Instead, the uranium-thorium technique calculates an age from the degree to which secular equilibrium has been restored between the radioactive isotope thorium-230 and its radioactive parent uranium-234 within a sample.

The age is calculated by a purely mathematical formula where the variables are:

  1. the half-life of uranium-234,
  2. the half-life of thorium 230
  3. the amount of uranium-234 in the sample and
  4. the amount of thorium-230 in the sample

The formula will always return exactly the same age for the same inputs, and thus the accuracy and precision of the dated relies on the accuracy and precision of the measurements.

Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals

quote:
The direct determination of 230Th, 234U, and 238U abundances by Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry (TIMS) opened a wide range of dating applications that were previously out of reach of the classical alpha-counting technique (Chen et al., 1986; Edwards et al., 1987a, b; Edwards, 1988; Bard et al., 1990; Gallup et al., 2002). The typical 2s precision of a mass spectrometry 230 Th/ 234U/ 238U date is better than 1% of the age (Chen et al., 1986; Edwards et al., 1987a, b; Mortlock et al., 2004). ...

... We have adopted the new half-life estimates for 230Th and 234U reported by Cheng et al. (2000) and report all data using these new values. ...

... The Δ 14C calculations are made based on the more recent 14C half-life of 5730 +/- 40 years (Godwin, 1962). ...


Thus we have highly precise and accurate measurements of the amount of uranium-234 and thorium-230 with the new technology, and we have updated, laboratory developed half-lives for both element\isotopes.

This means that the Uranium-Thorium age determination should be precise and accurate to within 99% of actual age.

The only variable left in the coral data is the conversion of ocean reservoir levels of 14C to atmospheric levels of 14C:

quote:
The radiocarbon content of tropical surface water is depleted in 14C compared to the atmosphere due to incomplete isotopic equilibration and mixing with subsurface waters of older ages. This 14C offset between surface water and atmosphere is known as the ‘‘reservoir age’’ and in recent times ranges between 300 and 500 years in the western tropical and subtropical regions between 40N and 40S (Craig, 1957; Stuiver and Polach, 1977; Bard 1988). Fairbanks (1989) used a reservoir age of 400 years for Barbados radiocarbon ages based on an average of data for the western tropical Atlantic summarized in Bard (1988). ... There is an advantage to computing an average reservoir age from data spread over the Holocene, rather than from only a few measurements of preindustrial ages. ... More importantly, the uncertainty in the reservoir age in samples older than the Holocene becomes less significant as the analytical age uncertainties in radiocarbon and 230Th/ 234U/ 238U ages increase with time. The computed reservoir ages are remarkably similar: Barbados = 365 +/- 60 years (n = 21); Kiritimati = 350 +/- 55 years (n = 4); and Araki = 365 +/- 140 years (n = 9). ...

If ignored then the reported ages would be older, as the 14C/12C ratio is less in the ocean. Because the 14C comes from the atmosphere the variation in levels is less in the ocean than in the atmosphere, so using average values is justified.

The same issues of accurate determination of 14C and its half-life would of course hold for carbon-14 age determinations as well. From Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 5

quote:
... The age calculation is based on the exponential decay curve for a radioactive element with a half-life of 5730 years:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable (2)

t = {ln (Nf/No)/ln (1/2)} x t1/2

where t is the "C-14 age", ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14.
t = {ln (Nf/No)/-0.69315} x 5730 = -8267 x ln (Nf/No)

Where No is the original level of the C-14 isotope in the sample (when it was alive and growing and absorbing atmospheric C-14), and Nf is the amount remaining. The value for No today is ~0.00000000010% of total organic carbon and Nf is smaller depending on how much time has passed.

Exponential curves look like this:


For raw carbon-14 ages No is taken to be the 1950 level of the 14C/12C ratio, the half-life used is 5730 years,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14

quote:
There are three naturally occurring isotopes of carbon on Earth: 99% of the carbon is carbon-12, 1% is carbon-13, and carbon-14 occurs in trace amounts, i.e., making up about 1 part per trillion (0.0000000001%) of the carbon in the atmosphere. The half-life of carbon-14 is 5,730±40 years.[3]

3^ Godwin, H (1962). "Half-life of radiocarbon". Nature 195 (4845): 984. Bibcode:1962Natur.195..984G. doi:10.1038/195984a0.


so the only variable left that goes into the raw carbon-14 dates is the amount of 14C/12C in the sample.

Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals

quote:
... new higher precision 14C analyses measured at the Lawrence Livermore National Lab (LLNL) Center for Accelerator Mass Spectrometry (CAMS) and Leibniz-Labor for Radiometric Dating and Isotope Research at Christian-Albrechts University Kiel. ...

Radiocarbon measurements are made with a relative precision better than or equal to +0.4% (one sigma) for samples less than 30,000 years old ...


Again, a highly precise and accurate determination of the 14C content in the sample, rendered into a raw age datum by an exact mathematical formula, resulting in a highly precise raw age.

We see in Message 21 that the three dendrochronologies are precise and accurate to within 99.5% of actual age, and thus we should see consilience between these two systems if we are indeed measuring true age by these systems, and we do:

quote:


This has the raw 14C age on the "y" axis, as determined from precise and accurate measurements of the 14C content in the samples and an exact mathematical formula, and calendar age on the "x" axis, as determined by precise and accurate counting of tree rings and precise and accurate determination by the Uranium-Thorium method.

The minor variation between these two methods would likely be reduced by further refinement of the reservoir effect over time. This becomes less of an effect with greater age due to the nature of the calculations.

The dendrochronology age to 14C age correlation is shown by the green line, the Uranium-Thorium age to 14C age correlation is shown by the red dots. The dendrochronology data extends to over 12,400 years of uninterrupted, continuous growth.

Conclusion

The consilience of these two completely independent systems provides very high confidence in these results -- all the data is provided with over 99% precision and accuracy.

The earth must be at least 12,400 years old according to this data, ... and highly likely to be considerably older than that, as the Uranium-Thorium data extends to over 50,000 years, and there are a lot more age measurement systems with this level of consilience.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : mid v msg


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 17 by mindspawn, posted 11-15-2013 2:42 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2013 3:35 PM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18656
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(5)
Message 23 of 119 (711344)
11-17-2013 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mindspawn
11-15-2013 2:42 AM


Of Diatoms and Clay and Lake Suigetsu varves
2) Lake Suigetsu is fed by a river in a small catchment area. I challenge you to explain to me how layers of sediment wash into a lake in seasonal patterns without a high degree of sensitivity to each significant rainfall

Easy.

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187 (3)

quote:
A 75-m long continuous core (Lab code, SG) and four short piston cores were taken from the center of the lake in 1991 and 1993. The sediments are laminated in nearly the entire core sections and are dominated by darkcolored clay with white layers resulting from spring-season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin laminations or varves. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform, typically 1.2 mm/year during the Holocene and 0.61 mm/year during the Glacial. The bottom age of the SG core is estimated to be older than 100,000 years, close to the beginning of the last interglacial period.

There are five different core sections taken in different sections of the lake. The effect of rapid deposition of sediment would be different in the different locations, as the rapid deposition would occur close to the inlet and taper off with distance. Most of the material so deposited would be sand and other materials with fast settlement rates.

http://water.me.vccs.edu/concepts/velocitysusp.htm

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.


http://wps.prenhall.com/...objects/3312/3391718/blb1306.html

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.

http://www.d.umn.edu/~pfarrell/lab_8.htm

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.


http://www.agriinfo.in/default.aspx?page=topic&superid=4&...

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. 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 the lake acts 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.

We see from above that the annual deposition of clay is 1.2 mm/year during the Holocene and 0.61 mm/year before that. You can see this on the following graph:

A 40,000-YEAR VARVE CHRONOLOGY FROM LAKE SUIGETSU, JAPAN: EXTENSION OF THE 14C CALIBRATION CURVE

quote:

This again confirms that the clay deposition is very very slow, taking months to accumulate.

This means that the clay layers do not have " ... high degree of sensitivity to each significant rainfall ... " but rather that variations in the inflow have a completely negligable effect on the clay layer formation.

Message 51) 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).

Actually there are ~25 spring tides per year ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_phase

quote:
... The time between two full moons (a Lunar month) is about 29.53 days[1] (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes) on average ...

That's 2x365.24/29.53 = 24.74 per year ...

... and the calibration curve (see below) would be nearly vertical because the horizontal axis would be compressed while the mathematical calculation of age from the 14C/12C ratios in the samples would be unaffected.

Curiously, it does not matter how many diatom mass deaths occur in a year or how much the river flow changes, as this does not affect the layer formation. There could be 50 mass deaths in one summer and there would be one diatom layer for the year. There could be 50 storms and it wouldn't affect the winter layer formed by clay sediment.

This is because the diatoms settle fast -- within a day of death -- while the clay settles slowly taking months to form a layer. and only when there are no further diatom deaths. Only the winter months provide the time necessary to form a clay layer.

This also means that the 14C pattern matching to the dendrochronologies would not be possible.

However, we have independent corroboration for Lake Suigetsu in two forms:

(1) the age of volcanic layers and

(2) the consilience with coral data

http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf

quote:
Estimation of eruptive ages of the late Pleistocene tephra layers derived from Daisen and Sambe Volcanoes based on AMS -14C dating of the moor sediments at Ohnuma Moor in the Chugoku Mountains, Western Japan

The Ohnuma Moor in the eastern part of the Chugoku Mountains, western Japan, is located about 80 km west of Daisen Volcano and more than 100 km west of Sambe Volcano. The moor has thick sediments more than 63 m that are composed of peat and organic clay and clay above about 17 m in depth, and of coarser silt, sand and gravels below. The finer part contains four tephra layers of Kikai-Akahoya Volcanic Ash Beds (K-Ah), Daisen-Misen Pumice Beds (MsP), Daisen Shitano-hoki Volcanic Ash Beds (Sh), and Aira-Tanzawa Volcanic Ash Beds (AT) in descending stratigraphic order. ...

... The eruptive age of SUk is thus estimated to be from 16,700 to 16,770 y BP (median: 16,740 y BP). We conclude that the eruptive age of SUk (= Sakate) is 16,740 160 y BP (19,966 305 cal. BP) from the effect of the sub-sampling error of 110 to 120 years. This estimated age is also concordant with the AMS-14C date measured in the OB-4 core.

The eruptive age of Sh are calculated to be 24,330 to 24,420 y BP (median: 24,370 y BP) by the same procedure as used for the estimation of an eruptive age of AT. It is estimated to be 24,370 120 y BP (29,320 412 cal. BP) considering the sub-sampling error of 70 to 80 years.


These ages are concordant with the age in Lake Suigetsu cores for both Sakate and Daisen-hoki in the graph above. Note that volcanic deposits are identified by signature elements, and are not the same from different volcanoes.

Now on to consilience with the coral data:

Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals

quote:
... These new results are presented and discussed in this paper (Fig. 3). ...

The offset between radiocarbon years and calendar years increases from the present to approximately 38,500 calendar years BP reaching more than 6000 years difference. From 38,500 calendar years BP to 50,000 calendar years BP the trend reverses and radio-carbon ages grow slightly closer to calendar ages (Fig. 3). By 50,000 calendar years BP, the corresponding radiocarbon age is younger by approximately 3700 years. The departure of the calibration curve from the one to one line (D 14C) contains fundamental information on solar output (Damon et al., 1978; Stuiver and Quay, 1980), the carbon cycle (Edwards et al., 1993; Hughen et al., 1998; Hughen et al., 2000), and the Earth’s geomagnetic field (Bard et al., 1990; Beck et al.,2001).


The data from Lake Suigetsu shows

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/279/5354/1187 (3)

quote:

Fig. 1. (A) Radiocarbon calibration up to 45,000 yr B.P. reconstructed from annually laminated sediments of Lake Suigetsu, Japan. The small circles with 1s error represent the 14C ages against varve ages. For the oldest eight points (>38,000 years, filled circles), we assumed a constant sedimentation during the Glacial period. The green symbols correspond to the tree-ring calibration (2, 15), and the large red symbols represent calibration by combined 14C and U-Th dating of corals from Papua New Guinea (squares) (8), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles) (7). The line indicates that radiocarbon age equals calibrated age.


This graph shows the previous dendrochronology calibration curve (green), the Lake Suigetsu data (blue) and data from marine corals (red) from Papua New Guinea (squares), Mururoa (circles), and Barbados (triangles).

On this graph we have the Carbon-14 levels (represented as "Radiocarbon Age") shown for multiple cores from 8830 to ~20,000 years on the horizontal time scale, and data (I count ~50 samples) from ~20,000 to 37,930 years from one core correlated with counted varve layers, and then eight more organic samples where the horizontal age datum is assumed from sediment thickness (and which are not included in discussion here). This means that most of the 250 samples occurred in the area of most reliability - where there were multiple cores.

We can discard the data after 37,930 years as being less reliable, depending as it does on estimates of layers rather than the actual layer counts used for the period between 8,830 to 37,930 years ago (with the overlap to dendrochronology between 8,830 and 12,405 years ago).

Please note the consilience between the three sets of coral data and the Lake Suigetsu data on this last graph: these coral data points are independent and earlier than the coral study done here. Note that precision in measurements has improved due to new technology being able to make more accurate measurements than was previously available.

From these two different graphs, from two different systems, we see a high degree of agreement - consilience - in the results.

We now have high consilience between three (3) dendrochronologies, four (4) coral chronologies, two (2) volcanic eruption dates, and one (1) lake varve chronology.

Conclusion

The consilience of the Lake Suigetsu data and the Ohnuma Moor data for the volcanic eruption dates shows we can have a high degree of confidence in these dates.

The consilience of Lake Suigetsu data with coral data -- completely independent systems -- provides very high confidence in these results .

The consilience between the coral data and the highly precise and accurate dendrochronology provides very high confidence in these results.

The earth must be at least 37,930 years old according to this data, ... and highly likely to be considerably older than that, as the Uranium-Thorium data extends to over 50,000 years, and there are a lot more age measurement systems with this level of consilience.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : spling

Edited by RAZD, : added bits

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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 17 by mindspawn, posted 11-15-2013 2:42 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by mindspawn, posted 11-25-2013 5:18 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18656
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 24 of 119 (711419)
11-18-2013 2:41 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mindspawn
11-15-2013 2:42 AM


The Tip of the Iceberg
3) Ice cores are precipitation sensitive, each large snowfall/rainfall would by its very nature create a layer, please explain why those layers are annual and not sensitive to each major precipitation during the year.

Again this is fairly simple to do. Let's start with an easy example, from Age Correlations thread, msg 6:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/slides/slideset/index20.htm (3)

quote:
(Slide 1) The Peruvian altiplano is a high plateau ranging in altitude from 3500 to over 4000 meters above sea level. ... The Quelccaya ice cap rises in the background, 55 km2 of ice that provides important clues on climatic change and variability in the South American tropics. The ice sheet's summit elevation is 5670 m and its maximum summit thickness is 164 m.

(Slide 3) The Quelccaya cap terminates abruptly and spectacularly in a 55 m ice cliff. The annual accumulation layers clearly visible in the photograph are an average of .75 m thick. While snow can fall during any season on the altiplano, most of it (80-90%) arrives between the months of November and April. The distinct seasonality of precipitation at Quelccaya results in the deposition of the dry season dust bands seen in the ice cliff. These layers are extremely useful to the paleoclimatologist because they allow ice core records to be dated very accurately using visual stratigraphyy, which is simply the visual identification of annual dust layers in ice records (in most ice cores, annual layers become indistinct at depth, forcing paleoclimatologists to rely on less-accurate ice-flow models to establish chronologies; at Quelccaya, on the other hand, annual layers are visible throughout the core).

There would also be pollen and seeds mixed in with the dust, which would only occur during the growing season. The layers are easy to identify because of the dust band.

But that is not all this particular ice formation is useful for:

quote:
(Slide 6) An array of forty-eight solar panels provided enough electricity to recover two ice cores to bedrock, one 154.8 m long covering the last 1350 years, and the other 163.6 m long and 1500 years old.

(Slide 11) Two of the analyses performed on the cores are presented here, accumulation and the oxygen isotope ratio (known as δ18O). Accumulation is a measure of annual layer thickness normalized to account for the compression of ice layers at depth and corrected for ice flow dynamics. The oxygen isotope ratio (a measure of the ratio of heavy oxygen (18O) to light oxygen (16O)) is a proxy measure for paleotemperature, though it also reflects changes in snow surface processes and water-vapor history.

One of the most salient features in the last millennium of climate history is the Little Ice Age, a loosely-defined period of cold temperatures and increased climatic variability that has been documented in many parts of the globe.* As this figure shows, the Little Ice Age is identified in the Quelccaya climate record as a period of 'colder' (more negative) δ18O roughly bracketed between 1550 A.D. and 1900 A.D.


The δ18O) measurement is like the tree-ring band width measurement as an indicator of climate, and thus matching δ18O) levels in different ice cores or other depositions can show consilience in the data or correlate one to the other. In this case it shows climate that is consilient with the archeological record for Peru.

While this series of layers only date back to ~500AD they are important for a couple of reasons: they show visible layers, and they allow calibration of the oxygen isotope ratio (δ18O) as a measure of layers and of climate. These layers also show a period of sever weather that is known from history (the Little Ice Age) and the effects of a volcanic eruption nearby that occurred in 1600 AD. These results can then be applied to other ice cores.

Continuing from the same slide show:

quote:
(Slide 14) The Dunde Ice Cap (pronounced Dun-duh) is extremely remote, perched on the mountain range separating China's highest desert, the Qaidam Basin, from its more famous counterpart, the Gobi. For over 40,000 years, snow has been piling up on this 60 km2 ice cap deep in China's sparsely inhabited interior. A team of paleoclimatologists from the United States and China came here in 1987 to uncover the climatic secrets locked in Dunde's icy depths.

(Slide 17) Since Quelccaya is at the edge of the moist Amazon Basin while Dunde is wedged between two deserts, it is not surprising that accumulation rates are much higher at Quelccaya. Indeed, the annual average accumulation at Quelccaya in meters of water equivalent is 1.15 m compared to just .43 m at Dunde. Like Quelccaya, around 80% of Dunde's precipitation falls during the wet season. The dry season is clearly identified in the core record by the layers of dust from surrounding deserts visible in this ice segment.

Since snow accumulates more slowly at Dunde, ice from its ~140 m cores is significantly older than that from Quelccaya. While Quelccaya provides high-resolution clues to the last 1500 years of climate, Dunde stretches back over 40,000 years, well into the last ice age.


The same kind of alternating layers of dust and snow as at Quelccaya, the same kind of climate information from the oxygen isotope ratio (δ18O), data that matches known climate markers, including the last ice age, data that also showed up in Lake Suigetsu climate information. Research on the Dunde Ice Cores is continuing, including analysis of the dust and pollen as markers not just of climate but of environment.

http://geology.geoscienceworld.org/...tent/abstract/26/2/135 (5)

quote:
High pollen concentrations between 10 000 and 4800 yr B.P. suggest that the summer monsoon probably extended beyond its present limit to reach Dunde and westernmost Tibet in response to orbital forcing. The summer monsoon retreated time-transgressively across the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau during the middle Holocene. Relatively humid periods occurred at 2700-2200, 1500-800, and 600-80 yr B.P., probably as a result of neoglacial cooling. Prominent pollen changes during the Medieval Warm Period (790-620 yr B.P.) and the Little Ice Age (330-80 yr B.P.) suggest that the vegetation in the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau region is sensitive to abrupt, century-scale climatic changes, such as those anticipated in scenarios of greenhouse warming.

Again we have dating correlated with climate information.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/wu102k4348572506/ (6)

quote:
The insoluble microparticle concentrations and size distributions and oxygen isotope abundances (δ180) in two 1-meter ice cores from the margin of the Dunde ice cap (38° 06 'N; 96° 24 'E; 5325 masl) drilled in 1986 and three ice cores drilled to bedrock at the summit of the ice cap in 1987 suggest the presence of Wisconsin/Würm Glacial Stage (LWGS) ice in the subtropics.

Additionally, the morphological properties of the particles in the LWGS ice are identical to those of the thick, extensive loess deposits of central china which accumulated during the cold, dry glacial stages of the Pleistocene. When the climatic and environmental records are fully extracted from the three deep cores they will provide a very detailed record of variations in particulates (soluble and insoluble), stable isotopes, net balance, pollen and perhaps atmospheric gases of CO2 and methane through the Holocene into the last glacial in the subtropics on the climatically important Tibetan Plateau.


We see evidence of the end of the last glaciation period in the dust and pollen in the layers of ice from the Dunde Ice Cap in addition to the evidence of the dδsup>18O ratios.

The climate markers are similar to Lake Suigetsu and other data, and this shows a continuous annual record that is precise and accurate due to the difference between dry season dust and wet season snow. Dust could be blown by several storms, but this would stop when the wet season begins and then snow would accumulate from many storms before dust once again covered it the following year.

Minimum age of the earth > 40,000 years based on this data.

And we are not done with ice cores yet.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/PSCF/2003/PSCF12-03Seely.pdf (6)

quote:
There are a dozen or so important Greenland ice cores, but the latest and greatest are GRIP (Greenland Ice Project) and GISP2 (Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2), which were extracted at the Summit where the ice rarely melts. GRIP was dated by counting back annual layers from the surface to c. 14,500 BP (before the present, dated 1950) using electrical conductivity method (ECM, see below) and the rest of the ice core was dated on the basis of flow modeling and chemical techniques. GISP2 was dated by visually counting annual hoar frost layers back to c. 12,000 BP and from 12,000 to 110,000 BP by visually counting annual dust layers.

Back to 12,000 BP, this counting was validated by a very close agreement of three independent methods of counting the annual layers. From 12,000 BP back to 40,000 BP, the counting was validated by a very close agreement of two independent methods of counting the annual layers, and from 40,000 BP back to 110,000 BP by a close agreement of two independent methods. Also, despite the different methods used for dating GRIP and GISP2, there is "excellent agreement" between them (and with deep sea cores as well); so the cores corroborate each other.

The first way we know the top 12,000 layers are annual is because the snow that falls in the summer in Greenland is affected by the sun (which only shines in the summer) in such a way that its crystals become much more coarsegrained than winter snow.

Another way to distinguish the annual layers is to note the dust concentrations. In the late winter/early spring when the wind is stronger than usual, significantly more dust (insoluble matter of various kinds) is carried in the air -- even from the Southern hemisphere and Asia -- and is deposited in the layers of snow in Greenland.

The third way annual layers can be distinguished is via the electrical conductivity of the layers.16 In the spring and summer when the sun is shining, nitric acid is produced in the stratosphere and enters the snow, but this does not happen in the winter.17 The acid in the spring/summer layer enables an electrical current to easily flow through that layer, but the relative lack of acid in the winter layer allows much less electricity to flow through that layer. So, as two electrodes mechanically run down the ice core the readout (mm by mm) of the resultant flows of electricity shows the successive years as a series of peaks (summer) and valleys (winter).

It is to a large extent the correlation and corroborating testimony of these three main methods of counting the annual layers in the GISP2 core which guarantees the validity of the ice core dating.22 The three methods have excellent correlation with each other down to 2500 m, that is, back to c. 57,000 BP.23 In the upper 2300 m (down to c. 40,000 BP) the correspondence of the three methods has been called "remarkable."24


Note the consilience of the different cores and the different measuring systems.

As you can see the ice cores take us back considerably further in time, while this is still the tip of the iceberg for core age data. Here are only concerned with the consilience of age and climate to the 14C data correlation and calibration.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added

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 17 by mindspawn, posted 11-15-2013 2:42 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18656
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 25 of 119 (711431)
11-18-2013 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by mindspawn
11-15-2013 2:42 AM


Dry Lakes and Rabbit Holes and Rational Conclusions and Cognitive Dissonance
4) Lake Lisan was also in a dry area, please explain why each rainfall in a semi-desert region does not form a layer of sediment. In wet regions sediment flows in rivers and lakes show seasonal patterns, due to saturated water tables allowing continuity of the flow between rainfalls. This seasonal effect is lessened in dry areas which are more sensitive to each and every rainfall.

Message 19

I disagree about the rabbit holes and what-ifs.......

This is one:

Message 7

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.

Curiously I read the paper and found absolutely nothing about 14C dating, calibration of 14C, tree ring counting or lake varve counting. The only thing you remark on -- dry climatic conditions -- applies to the dead sea area, an area geologically separate from any of the 14C vs annual layer systems. You have presented zero evidence that it is related to climate in any other location and that it affects 14C dating in any way. That's a Red Herring Logical Fallacy.

quote:
Reconstruction of paleo-shorelines of Lake Lisan, the late Pleistocene precursor of the Dead Sea, is based on sequence stratigraphy of fan-delta and lacustrine deposits that are exposed at the Perazim Valley, southwest of the Dead Sea. The shoreline sediments are physically correlated with lacustrine aragonites, their ages are determined by U-series dating, to establish a lake-level curve for the time interval between 55 and 35 kyr. ...

... A correlation between the Lake Lisan sedimentary record and deep sea and ice core records reveals that during warm (interglacial) episodes in the North Atlantic, the Dead Sea-Jordan region was dry, and the level of Lake Lisan dropped (Stein, 1999; Schramm et al., 2000). ...


The study basically investigates how alluvial fans at river mouths show the lake level history, it is completely irrelevant to 14C dating and to the formation of varves in the center of a lake.

Perhaps you should read Introduction To Geology to better understand how irrelevant this is.

So now I have answered each of the issues you raised in Message 17:

  1. ... 4 of those locations are precipitation sensitive ... Weather occurs in cycles and patterns, eg cold fronts. It logical that there would be approximately the same number of major precipitation events every year, and so the consilience is not unrealistic ... You need a stronger argument than consilience to counter my argument of precipitation sensitivity of those locations, which explains the consilience due to consistent worldwide rainfall patterns. ... see Message 21
  2. ... "half-life of Uranium-Thorium is not independently established in a laboratory," ... see Message 22
  3. ... White Mountain bristlecone pines are precipitation sensitive and the location has very dry soil. I challenge you to explain to me how the wood continues to grow between rainfalls in an area of dry soils ... see Message 21
  4. ... Lake Suigetsu is fed by a river in a small catchment area. I challenge you to explain to me how layers of sediment wash into a lake in seasonal patterns without a high degree of sensitivity to each significant rainfall ... see Message 23
  5. ... Ice cores are precipitation sensitive, each large snowfall/rainfall would by its very nature create a layer, please explain why those layers are annual and not sensitive to each major precipitation during the year ... see Message 24
  6. ... Lake Lisan was also in a dry area, please explain why each rainfall in a semi-desert region does not form a layer of sediment. In wet regions sediment flows in rivers and lakes show seasonal patterns, due to saturated water tables allowing continuity of the flow between rainfalls. This seasonal effect is lessened in dry areas which are more sensitive to each and every rainfall ... see Message 25

I have found these claims to be false (1 to 5) or irrelevant (Lake Lisan), and provided the information and objective empirical data that invalidates (falsifies) your false claims.

Message 3

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:

I have shown that dendrochronology is both precise and accurate to it's current (data) limit of 12,405 years of age, with 100% accuracy and precision for the "year without a summer" in 1816 (197 years ago) and 99.5% accuracy and precision at over 8,000 years ago.

I have shown that the tree rings are annual formations with high accuracy and precision.

Thus I have answered to your "main problem" and this should be the end of this thread.

Further I have shown that the Lake Suigetsu varves are in fact annual formations and thus their consilience with the tree ring data makes a stronger case for 14C dating.

Further I have shown that the coral study consilience with both the dendrochronologies and Lake Suigetsu makes an even stronger case for 14C dating, if not for radiometric dating as a whole.

I've shown how annual layers of ice are determined ...

... and I get to the point where I have to ask: do you really think that the thousands of scientists who have spent years studying for a PhD and decades of their lives studying these various systems are all such naive and incompetent bufoons that they have never considered the difference between annual and other effects?

Really?

Do you think that hundreds of creationists have also never considered these issues and asked questions (do you have any idea how many creationist PRATTs (Points Refuted a Thousand Times) are already out there)?

Are you familiar with creationists say the funniest things? Seems to me that your precipitation claim fits that category.

... but measured against existing dating methods ...

No, they are correlated with other methods, and the consilience of data (and there is a LOT more) shows that the correlation of 14C to actual age is valid and 99% precise, if mildly inaccurate (~90% accuracy), and that we CAN calibrate 14C to improve the accuracy of results (generally making them younger).

... and so is bound to evolutionary assumptions ...

Which of course is a term based on misinformation, ignorance and denial (see cognitive dissonance below) -- 14C has nothing to do with evolution nor do any of the dating methods discussed. You only confuse yourself by using invalid terms.

Perhaps if you articulate fully what you think these are, you can begin to see that your assumptions are false.

Unfortunately for you those locations definitely favor 11-12 layers a year consistent with precipitation, rather than one layer a year ...

Rather obviously a totally made up number with absolutely no supporting evidence. By the time I finish with layered counting systems for the age of certain features on this earth you will need a much much larger factor to squeeze the natural history of this planet into any kind of YEC model. If you care to continue ...

Curiously I don't expect much from you at this point, but I'll wait with unbated breath for your next installment ... if it comes ...

(1) there isn't any real evidence for a young earth, so all you have is fantasy and delusion, and

(2) cognitive dissonance -- you'll go into ignore mode and run away or try some other lame attempt to save face.

Cognitive dissonance - (Wikipedia, 2010)
Cognitive dissonance is an uncomfortable feeling caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously. The theory of cognitive dissonance proposes that people have a motivational drive to reduce dissonance by changing their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors, or by justifying or rationalizing them.[2] It is one of the most influential and extensively studied theories in social psychology.

A powerful cause of dissonance is an idea in conflict with a fundamental element of the self-concept, such as "I am a good person" or "I made the right decision". The anxiety that comes with the possibility of having made a bad decision can lead to rationalization, the tendency to create additional reasons or justifications to support one's choices. A person who just spent too much money on a new car might decide that the new vehicle is much less likely to break down than his or her old car. This belief may or may not be true, but it would reduce dissonance and make the person feel better. Dissonance can also lead to confirmation bias, the denial of disconfirming evidence, and other ego defense mechanisms.

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

The objective empirical evidence shows consistently, consiliently, that the earth is old, very very old ... over 4.5 billion years old, and my advice is ... get used to it.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added links

Edited by RAZD, : spling

Edited by RAZD, : 14C not 14D


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 17 by mindspawn, posted 11-15-2013 2:42 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2013 3:43 AM RAZD has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 26 of 119 (711441)
11-19-2013 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
11-18-2013 7:14 PM


Re: Dry Lakes and Rabbit Holes and Rational Conclusions and Cognitive Dissonance
Curiously I read the paper and found absolutely nothing about 14C dating, calibration of 14C, tree ring counting or lake varve counting. The only thing you remark on -- dry climatic conditions -- applies to the dead sea area, an area geologically separate from any of the 14C vs annual layer systems. You have presented zero evidence that it is related to climate in any other location and that it affects 14D dating in any way. That's a Red Herring Logical Fallacy.

quote:
Reconstruction of paleo-shorelines of Lake Lisan, the late Pleistocene precursor of the Dead Sea, is based on sequence stratigraphy of fan-delta and lacustrine deposits that are exposed at the Perazim Valley, southwest of the Dead Sea. The shoreline sediments are physically correlated with lacustrine aragonites, their ages are determined by U-series dating, to establish a lake-level curve for the time interval between 55 and 35 kyr. ...
... A correlation between the Lake Lisan sedimentary record and deep sea and ice core records reveals that during warm (interglacial) episodes in the North Atlantic, the Dead Sea-Jordan region was dry, and the level of Lake Lisan dropped (Stein, 1999; Schramm et al., 2000). ...
The study basically investigates how alluvial fans at river mouths show the lake level history, it is completely irrelevant to 14C dating and to the formation of varves in the center of a lake.

Perhaps you should read Introduction To Geology to better understand how irrelevant this is.

Thank you RAZD for your well researched posts. I have had the time to start looking into replies to your first two posts, and before I replied you have since added some more. This possibly means that you have more time than me, in which case to even the playing field I would like you to post one post for every one of mine, to keep the number of discussion topics limited for now. I hope this is ok for you, I think it would make it easier for everyone and ourselves to follow the discussion.

You may not have realized, but most of my discussion has revolved around the seven points of consilience in Coyote's graph in message 4:
Tree Ring
Lake Suigetsu
Bahamas
Speleothem
Carioca Basin
PS2644
Lake Lisan
Papua New Guinea

Lake Lisan is clearly listed as one of the points of consilience related to radiocarbon dating, and this is why I brought up Lake Lisan to look into how those layers were formed. My focus remains on those 7 points of consilience which is when you joined the conversation and therefore Lake Lisan remains relevant. The only point I was making from the link is that Lake Lisan was in a dry region, I'm not sure why you were trying to find other relevance in my link when I was clear on what was relevant.

I have shown that dendrochronology is both precise and accurate to it's current (data) limit of 12,405 years of age, with 100% accuracy and precision for the "year without a summer" in 1816 (197 years ago) and 99.5% accuracy and precision at over 8,000 years ago.

I have shown that the tree rings are annual formations with high accuracy and precision.

Thus I have answered to your "main problem" and this should be the end of this thread.

Don't you think to summarize and conclude you have won the debate is a little early if you take into account I haven't even replied to your posts?

Also to post a picture of a plummeting plane is a little premature in my eyes.

Also to assume my link on Lake Nisan was irrelevant is one point, but to post about a Red Herring Logical Fallacy is going a little far considering you were wrong about the irrelevance.

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

The objective empirical evidence shows consistently, consiliently, that the earth is old, very very old ... over 4.5 billion years old, and my advice is ... get used to it.

This discussion is in its infancy, please do not mistake my busy lifestyle and slow replies for avoidance. I am looking forward to your open mind during the rest of our discussion, hoping you will have a mature approach to the rest of the discussion.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 11-18-2013 7:14 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 2:54 PM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 27 of 119 (711442)
11-19-2013 5:58 AM
Reply to: Message 21 by RAZD
11-17-2013 10:24 AM


Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration
I thought I would deal with one of the more egregious claims you have made, just to get it out of the way first:

When I said four of those locations are precipitation sensitive I was not referring to Ireland or Germany. I was referring to Lake Lisan, White Mountains of California, Lake Suigetsu and Cariaco Basin.

I thought that the Cariaco Basin was ice core related, but since then I see it relates to sediments washing into the gulf of Mexico, which is also precipitation related during past times.

Note that we have 4 places in Northern Ireland where the rainfall occurs with a similar but slightly different total rainfall per month in each place.

Thus the rainfall pattern in Ireland alone is not precisely the same in all locations -- a requirement for your claim of consistent rainfall patterns causing rings instead of annual rings.

I agree that the whole world does not have exactly the same rainfall patterns, but this wasn't the actual requirement of my claim. Maybe you missed the essence of my claim, possibly I am at fault through not communicating clearly. Due to weather having patterns from major weather phenomenon like cold fronts, cyclones etc, there is a regular cyclical nature to weather in most locations. Various locations on earth can have an annual weather pattern of approximately 10-12 major wet spells interspersed with dry spells and minor wet spells.

I wasn't meaning to imply that the whole world has exactly the same weather in exactly the same patterns. 3 weather stations close to locations under discussion are as follows:

White Mountains:
https://weatherspark.com/.../Bishop-California-United-States
https://weatherspark.com/...h-Lakes-California-United-States

Jordan River:
https://weatherspark.com/history/32846/2012/Amman-Jordan

Cariaco Basin:
https://weatherspark.com/.../2012/Maiquetia-Vargas-Venezuela

Monthly rainfall charts are irrelevant to this discussion as they do not reveal significant dry and wet spells, we need daily rainfall charts for that.

http://www.sonic.net/bristlecone/WhiteMts.html
quote:
Located in east central California just north of Death Valley, and on the western edge of the Great Basin, the White Mountains rise to a respectable altitude of 14,246 feet (4342m). Yet they remain in a rain shadow map of the Sierra Nevada located a few miles west across the deep Owens Valley. As Pacific storms move eastward, the Sierra simply takes the majority of moisture, leaving the White Mountains with strong dry winds. Annual precipitation is less than 12 inches (30cm), most of which arrives as snow in winter. On a summer's day the amount of precipital moisture in the air is about half a millimeter, the lowest ever recorded anywhere on earth. .

Your quote simply supports my position. The soils are so dry, that its impossible for the trees to grow during the dry spell. Every rain spell therefore shows as a ring, because the growing stops between the rain spells. Yes the spring melt would cause a ring, but these trees are also temperature sensitive, and so rainfalls during the warmer months would also cause small rings. Between the spring melt and summer rainfalls the tree cannot grow, as the soil completely dries out. The summer rainfalls are most suitable for growth (warmth and water) and so rings would form then.

Thus it may be valid to claim that growth of the Bristlecone Pine is water limited, however it should be noted that most of the 12" of rain arrives as snow, and thus this water is not available for tree growth until it melts in the spring. As an evergreen (unlike the Oaks which are deciduous) these trees would tend to grow year-round, with the larger cell size growth in the spring, thus making annual rings that are easily discernable.

You believe just one tree ring was formed annually in spring? If this is what you believe I find that highly unrealistic. Contrary to your claims, the rainfall figures over the last year also do show significant rainfalls above an inch in summer in the area. These trees are temperature sensitive, and with a complete drying out of soil in a dry spell after spring, there is no reason to doubt growth during a warmer period of summer rainfall.

To create chronologies further back than living trees (dated to 4800 bp) you need dead trees that have remained in good condition for thousands of years. How did these dead trees survive without rotting for so long?

In addition creationists have actually shown that young bristlecone pines can show multiple rings per year, this study was done by Lammerts.

In all three chronologies the year without a summer was correctly identified as occurring in 1816, a precise and accurate assessment

Please present your evidence for this comment in all 3 chronologies. I'm especially interested in your proof of this in specifically those most ancient of living bristlecone pines in the arid white mountain area. Many bristlecone pines are found in warmer wetter areas, of course these would show annual rings, but this would not prove your point about the more ancient bristlecone pines.

In addition, the three dendrochronologies agree with over 99.5% precision for over 8,000 years of record (see Age Correlations thread for details).

Conclusion

The Irish and German Oak dendrochronologies are not based on rainfall patterns as claimed, but on annual growth patterns.

The Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology is based on annual precipitation from snow melting in the spring.

I wont be referring to entire whole threads for your evidence, if you wish to make a point kindly post your point in this thread, or give me a link to an exact post in another thread regarding this 8000 year agreement.

Up to this point I haven't discussed the Irish and German Oak chronologies. Neither of these are in dry regions therefore I agree with you about annual rings currently. However I believe these regions were in dryer environments in the past.

The Holocene had dry patches which would have affected tree growth rings by a large factor (the number of annual wet/dry spells per year). This would be reflected in much smaller rings during dry periods.
http://www.clim-past.net/8/1751/2012/cp-8-1751-2012.pdf

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2013 10:24 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 5:10 PM mindspawn has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18656
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(5)
Message 28 of 119 (711492)
11-19-2013 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by mindspawn
11-19-2013 3:43 AM


Re: Dry Lakes and Rabbit Holes and Rational Conclusions and Cognitive Dissonance
Don't you think to summarize and conclude you have won the debate is a little early if you take into account I haven't even replied to your posts?

What I said was that this should be the end of this thread because your "main problem with carbon dating" was answered, and thus it is a fair assesment. That you don't accept an answer does not mean that it has not been provided.

You may not have realized, but most of my discussion has revolved around the seven points of consilience in Coyote's graph in Message 4:

Your original claim in Message 3 was "its calibration against tree ring chronology..." and so you are now moving the goal posts to other correlations while blissfully ignoring the consilience of all the different methods, hand waving them away with some fantasy about precipitation sensitivity.

There are three (3) distinct dendrochronologies, Irish Oak, German Oak and Pine, and Bristlecone Pine from the White Mountains in Nevada. Your "main problem with carbon dating" has been answered by showing that tree ring calculation is 100% accurate and precise for 1816 the "year without a summer" and slightly over 99.5% accurate and precise for a bit over 8,000 years of record; by showing that the oak dendrochronologies are not water limited as you claimed, and that the major source of water for the Bristlecone Pine comes from snow-melt in the spring, thus causing annual rings in all three very consilient records. Between the three dendrochronologies the greatest difference is between the Bristlecone Pine and the two (2) oak dendrochronologies, where the pine chronology is 37 years younger than the oak chronologies at the 8,000 year mark. This indicates that the pine chronology is more likely to be missing some annual rings than to have rainfall rings.

I can go into this in greater detail if you still have trouble accepting this.

You may not have realized, but most of my discussion has revolved around the seven points of consilience in Coyote's graph in Message 4:

Coyote showed you the graph so that you could see the consilience of data and your answer was to question each item and make up a fantasy about precipitation sensitivity. That is chasing rabbit holes.

Tree Ring
Lake Suigetsu
Bahamas
Speleothem
Carioca Basin
PS2644
Lake Lisan
Papua New Guinea

Lake Lisan is clearly listed as one of the points of consilience related to radiocarbon dating, and this is why I brought up Lake Lisan to look into how those layers were formed. ...

And yet the study you referenced had absolutely nothing to do with the 14C study -- that is what makes it a red herring.

Curiously scientific papers list the references used in the paper so that other people can check the information from those references.

Here is that graph again:

This is the reference list(*) from the paper with that graph:

quote:
References

  1. Andersen, K.K., Azuma, N., Barnola, J.-M., et al., 2004. High-resolution record of Northern Hemisphere climate extending into the last interglacial period. Nature 431 (7005), 147–151.
  2. Arnold, J.R., Libby, W.F., 1949. Age determinations by radiocarbon content: Checks with samples with known age. Science 110, 678–680.
  3. Bard, E., 1988. Correction of accelerator mass spectrometry 14C ages measured in planktonic foraminfera: paleoceanographic implications. Paleoceanography 3 (6), 635–645.
  4. Bard, E., 1998. Geochemical and geophysical implications of the radiocarbon calibration. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 62 (12), 2025–2038.
  5. Bard, E., Hamelin, B., Fairbanks, R.G., Zindler, A., 1990. Calibration of the 14C timescale over the past 30,000 years using mass spectrometric U-Th ages from Barbados corals. Nature 345, 405–410.
  6. Bard, E., Arnold, M., Fairbanks, R.G., Hamelin, B., 1993. 230Th/234U and 14C ages obtained by mass spectrometry on corals. Radiocarbon 35 (1), 191–199.
  7. Bard, E., Arnold, M., Hamelin, B., Tisnerat-Laborde, N., Cabioch, G., 1998. Radiocarbon calibration by means of mass spectrometric 230Th/ 234U and 14C ages of corals: an updated database including samples from Barbados, Mururoa and Tahiti. Radiocarbon 40, 1085–1092.
  8. Beck, J.W., Richards, D.A., Edwards, R.L., Silverman, B.W., Smart, P.L., Donahue, D.J., Herrera-Osterheld, S., Burr, G.S., Calsoyas, L., Jull, A.J.T., Biddulph, D., 2001. Extremely large variations of atmospheric 14C concentration during the last glacial period. Science 292, 2453–2458.
  9. Beer, J., Siegenthaler, U., Bonani, G., Finkel, R.C., Oeschger, H., Suter, M., Wolfli, W., 1988. Information on past solar activity and geomagnetism from 10Be in the C amp Century ice core. Nature 331, 675–679.
  10. Bevington, P.R., Robinson, D.K., 1992. Data reduction and error analysis for the physical sciecnes 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill, New York, USA 328p.
  11. Bronk Ramsey, C., 2001. Development of the radiocarbon calibration program. Radiocarbon 43, 355–363.
  12. Brown, T.A., Southon, J.R., 1997. Corrections for contamination background in AMS 14C measurements. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 123, 208–213.
  13. Buck, C.E., Blackwell, P.G., 2004. Formal statistical models for estimating radiocarbon calibration curves. Radiocarbon 46, 1093–1102.
  14. Buck, C.E., Cavanagh, W.G., Litton, C.D., 1996. Bayesian Approach to Interpreting Archaelogical Data. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, New York, Brisbane, Toronto, Tokyo, Singapore 382p.
  15. Burr, G.S., Beck, J.W., Taylor, F.W., Recy, J., Edwards, R.L., Cabioch, G., Correge, T., Donahue, D.J., O’Malley, J.M., 1998. A high-resolution radiocarbon calibration between 11,700 and 12,400 calendar years BP derived from 230Th ages of corals from Espiritu Santo Island, Vanuatu. Radiocarbon 40, 1093–1105.
  16. Chen, J.H., Edwards, R.L., Wasserburg, G.J., 1986. 238U, 234U, and 230Th in seawater. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 80, 241–251.
  17. Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Hoff, J., Gallup, C.D., Richards, D.A., Asmerom, Y., 2000. The half-lives of uranium-234 and thorium-230. Chemical Geology 169, 17–33.
  18. Chiu, T.-C., Fairbanks, R.G., Mortlock, R.A., 2004. Radiocarbon calibration between 30,000 and 50,000 years before present using fossil corals. AUG ann. mting., abstr.
  19. Chiu, T.-C., Fairbanks, R.G., Mortlock, R.A., Bloom, A.L., 2005. Extending the radiocarbon calibration beyond 26,000 years before present using fossil corals, Quaternary Science Reviews, this issue, doi:10.1016/j.quascirev.2005.04.002.
  20. Craig, H., 1957. The natural distribution of radiocarbon and the exchange time of carbon dioxide between atmosphere and sea. Tellus 9 (1), 1–17.
  21. Cutler, K.B., Gray, S.C., Burr, G.S., Edwards, R.L., Taylor, F.W., Cabioch, G., Beck, J.W., Cheng, H., Moore, J., 2004. Radiocarbon calibration and comparison to 50 kyr BP with paired 14C and 230Th dating of corals from Vanuatu and Papua New Guinea. Radiocarbon 46, 1127–1160.
  22. Damon, P.E., 1988. Production and decay of radiocarbon and its modulation by geomagnetic field-solar activity changes with possible implications for global environment. In: Stephenson, F.R., Wolfendale, A.W., (Eds.), Secular Solar and Geomagnetic Variations in the Last 10,000 years: NATO ASI Series. Series C. Academic Publishers, Dordrecht; Boston, Kluwer Academic Publishers, pp. 267–285.
  23. Damon, P.E., Long, A., 1962. Arizona radiocarbon dates III. Radiocarbon 4, 239–249.
  24. Damon, P.E., Long, A., Sigalove, J.J., 1963. Arizona Radiocarbon Dates IV. Radiocarbon 5 (1), 283–301.
  25. Damon, P.E., Lerman, J.C., Long, A., 1978. Temporal fluctuations of atmospheric 14C: causal factors and implications. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 6, 457–494.
  26. Dansgaard, W., White, J.W.C., Johnsen, S.J., 1989. The abrupt termination of the Younger Dryas climate event. Nature 339, 532–534.
  27. Dansgaard, W., Johnsen, S.J., Clausen, H.B., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N.S., Hammer, C.U., Hvidberg, C.S., Steffensen, J.P., Sveinbjornsdottir, A.E., Jouzel, J., Bond, G., 1993. Evidence for general instability of past climate from a 250-Kyr ice-core record. Nature 364, 218–220.
  28. Davis, J.C., Proctor, I.D., Southon, J.R., Caffee, M.W., Heikkinen, D.W., Roberts, M.L., Moore, T.L., Turteltaub, K.W., Nelson, D.E., Loyd, D.H., Vogel, J.S., 1990. LLNL/UC AMS facility and research program. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 52, 269–272.
  29. Dehling, H., van der Plicht, J., 1993. Statistical problems in calibrating radiocarbon dates. Radiocarbon 35, 239–244.
  30. Delaygue, G., Stocker, T.F., Joos, F., Plattner, G.-K., 2003. Simulation of atmospheric radiocarbon during abrupt oceanic circulation changes: trying to reconcile models and reconstructions. Quaternary Science Reviews 22, 1647–1658.
  31. Delanghe, D., Bard, E., Hamelin, B., 2002. New TIMS constraints on the Uranium–238 and Uranium-234 in seawaters from the main ocean basins and the Mediterranean Sea. Marine Chemistry 80, 79–93.
  32. de Vries, H., 1958. Variation in concentration of radiocarbon with time and location on Earth. Proceedings Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, Series B 61, 94–102.
  33. de Vries, H., 1959. Measurement and use of natural radiocarbon. In: Abelson, P.H. (Ed.), Researches in Geochemistry. Wiley, New York, pp. 169–189.
  34. Donahue, D.J., Linick, T.W., Jull, A.J.T., 1990. Isotope-ratio and background corrections for accelerator mass spectrometry radiocarbon measurements. Radiocarbon 32, 135–142.
  35. Edwards, R.L., 1988. High-precision thorium-230 ages of corals and the timing of the sea level fluctuations in the late Quaternary. Ph.D. thesis, California Institute of the Technology.
  36. Edwards, R.L., Chen, J.H., Wasserburg, G.J., 1987a. 238U-234U-230Th-232Th systematics and the precise measurement over the past 500,000 years. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 81, 175–192.
  37. Edwards, R.L., Chen, J.H., Ku, T.-L., Wasserburg, G.J., 1987b. Precise timing of the last interglacial period from mass spectrometric determination of Thorium-230 in corals. Science 236, 1547–1553.
  38. Edwards, R.L., Beck, J.W., Burr, G.S., Donahue, D.J., Chappell, J.M.A., Bloom, A.L., Druffel, E.R.M., Taylor, F.W., 1993. A large drop in atmospheric 14C/12C and reduced melting in the Younger Dryas, documented with 230Th ages of corals. Science 260, 962–968.
  39. Edwards, R.L., Cheng, H., Murrell, M.T., Goldstein, S.J., 1997. Protactinium-231 Dating of Carbonates by Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry: Implications for Quaternary Climate Change. Science 276, 782–786.
  40. Elsasser, W., Ney, E.P., Winckler, J.R., 1956. Cosmic-ray intensity and geomagnetism. Nature 178, 1226–1227.
  41. Fairbanks, R.G., 1989. A 17,000-year glacio-eustatic sea level record: influence of glacial melting rates on the Younger Dryas event and deep-ocean circulation. Nature 342, 637–642.
  42. Fairbanks, R.G., 1990. The age and origin of the ‘‘Younger Dryas climate event’’ in Greenland ice cores. Paleoceanography 6, 937–948.
  43. Friedrich, M., Kromer, B., Spurk, M., Hofmann, J., Kaiser, K.F., 1999. Paleo-environment and radiocarbon calibration as derived from Late Glacial/Early Holocene tree-ring chronologies. Quaternary International 61, 27–39.
  44. Friedrich, M., Kromer, B., Kaiser, K.F., Spurk, M., Hughen, K.A., Johnsen, S.J., 2001. High-resolution climate signals in the Bψlling-Allerψd Interstadial (Greenland Interstadial 1) as reflected in European tree-ring chronologies compared to marine varves and ice-core records. Quaternary Science Reviews 20 (11), 1223–1232.
  45. Friedrich, M., Remmele, S., Kromer, B., Hofmann, J., Spurk, M., Kaiser, K.F., Orcel, C., Kuppers, M., 2004. The 12,460-year Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring chronology from central Europe—a unique annual record for radiocarbon calibration and paleoenvironment reconstructions. Radiocarbon 46, 1111–1122.
  46. Gallup, C.D., Edwards, R.L., Johnson, R.G., 1994. The timing of high sea levels over the past 200,000 years. Science 263, 796–800.
  47. Gallup, C.D., Cheng, H., Taylor, F.W., Edwards, R.L., 2002. Direct determination of the timing of the sea level change during termination II. Science 295, 310–313.
  48. Godwin, H., 1962. Half-life of radiocarbon. Nature 195, 984.
  49. Gomez Portugal Aguilar, D., Litton, C.D., O’Hagan, A., 2002. Novel statistical model for a piece-wise linear radiocarbon calibration curve. Radiocarbon 44, 195–212.
  50. Goslar, T., Arnold, M., Tisnerat-Laborde, N., Czernik, J., Wieckowski, K., 2000a. Variations of Younger Dryas atmospheric radiocarbon explicable without ocean circulation changes. Nature 42, 877–880.
  51. Goslar, T., Hercman, H., Pazdur, A., 2000b. Comparison of U-series and radiocarbon dates of speleothems. Radiocarbon 42 (3), 403–414.
  52. Goslar, T., Arnold, M., Tisnerat-Laborde, N., Hatte, C., Paterne, M., Ralska-Jasiewiczowa, M., 2000c. Radiocarbon calibration by means of varves versus 14C ages of terrestrial macrofossils from Lake Gosciaz and Lake Perespilno, Poland. Radiocabon 42, 335–348.
  53. Guyodo, Y., Valet, J.-P., 1999. Global changes in intensity of the earth’s magnetic field during the past 800 kyr. Nature 399, 249–252.
  54. Halliday, A.N., Lee, D.-C., Christensen, J.N., Walder, A.J., Freedman, P.A., Jones, C.E., Hall, C.M., Yi, W., Teagle, D., 1995. Recent developments in inductively coupled plasma magnetic sector multiple collect mass spectrometry. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion Processes 146/147, 21–33.
  55. Halliday, A.N., Lee, D.-C., Christensen, J.N., Rehkamper, M., Yi, W., Luo, X., Hall, C.M., Ballentine, C.J., Pettke, T., Stirling, C., 1998. Applications of multiple collector-ICPMS to cosmochemistry, geochemistry and paleoceanography. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 62, 919–940.
  56. Hamelin, B., Bard, E., Zindler, A., Fairbanks, R.G., 1991. 234U/238U mass spectrometry of corals: How accurate is the U-Th age of the last interglacial period? Earth and Planetary Science Letters 106, 169–180.
  57. Henderson, G.M., Cohen, A.S., O’Nions, R.K., 1993. 234U/238U ratios and 230Th ages for Hateruma Atoll corals: implications for coral diagenesis and seawater 234U/238U ratios. Earth and Planetary Science Letters 115, 65–73.
  58. Hughen, K.A., Overpeck, J.T., Lehman, S.J., Kashgarian, M., Southon, J., Peterson, L.C., Alley, R., Sigman, D.M., 1998. Deglacial changes in ocean circulation from an extended radio- carbon calibration. Nature 391, 65–68.
  59. Hughen, K.A., Southon, J.R., Lehman, S.J., Overpeck, J.T., 2000. Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation. Science 290, 1951–1954.
  60. Hughen, K.A., Lehman, S., Southon, J., Overpeck, J., Marchal, O., Herring, C., Turnbull, J., 2004a. 14C activity and global carbon cycle changes over the past 50,000 years. Science 303 (5655), 202–207.
  61. Hughen, K.A., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Beck, J.W., Bertand, 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., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C.B., Reimer, P.J., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004b. Marine04 Marine radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 ka BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1059–1086.
  62. Johnsen, S.J., Clausen, H.B., Dansgaard, W., Fuhrer, K., Gundestrup, N., Hammer, C.U., Iversen, P., Jouzel, J., Stauffer, B., Steffensen, J.P., 1992. Irregular Glacial Interstadials recorded in a new Greenland ice core. Nature 359, 311–313.
  63. Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Dansgaard, W., Gundestrup, N., 1995. Greenland paleotemperatures derived from GRIP bore hole temperature and ice core isotope profiles. Tellus 47 B, 624–629.
  64. Johnsen, S.J., Clausen, H.B., Dansgaard, W., Gundestrup, N.S., Hammer, C.U., Andersen, U., Andersen, K.K., Hvidberg, C.S., Dahl-Jensen, D., Steffensen, J.P., Shoji, H., Sveinbjornsdottir, A.E., White, J., Jouzel, J., Fisher, D., 1997. The delta O-18 record along the Greenland Ice Core Project deep ice core and the problem of possible Eemian climatic instability. Journal of Geophysical Research-Oceans 102, 26397–26410.
  65. Johnsen, S.J., Dahl-Jensen, D., Gundestrup, N., Steffensen, J.P., Clausen, H.B., Miller, H., Masson-Delmotte, V., Sveinbjornsdottir, A.E., White, J., 2001. Oxygen isotope and palaeotemperature records from six Greenland ice-core stations: Camp Century, Dye-3, GRIP, GISP2, Renland and NorthGRIP. Journal of Quaternary Science 16, 299–307. 1795
  66. Kitagawa, H., van der Plicht, J., 2000. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration beyond 11,900 cal B.P. from Lake Suigetsu laminated sediments. Radiocarbon 42, 369–380.
  67. Kutschera, W., 1999. Accelerator mass spectrometry: analyzing our world atom by atom. American Institute of Physics (AIP) Conference Proceedings 495, 407–428.
  68. Lal, D., 1988. Theoretically expected variations in the terrestrial cosmic-ray production rates of isotope. In: Castagnoli, G.C. (Ed.), Solar-Terrestrial Relationships and the Earth Environment in the Last Millennia. North-Holland, Amsterdam; New York, pp. 216–233.
  69. Lal, D., Peters, B., 1962. Cosmic ray produced isotopes and their application to problems in geophysics. Progress in Elementary Particle and Cosmic Ray Physics 6, 1–74.
  70. Laj, C., Kissel, C., Mazaud, A., Channell, J.E.T., Beer, J., 2000. North Atlantic palaeointensity stack since 75 ka (NAPIS-75) and the duration of the Laschamp event. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Series A, Mathematical Physical and Engineering Sciences 358, 1009–1025.
  71. Laj, C., Kissel, C., Beer, J., 2004. High resolution global paleointensity stack since 75 kyr (GLOPIS-75) calibrated to absolute values. Geophysical Monograph Series 145, 255–265.
  72. Libby, W.F., 1955. Radiocarbon Dating. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 175p.
  73. Luo, X., Rehkamper, M., Lee, D.-C., Halliday, A.N., 1997. High precision 230Th/232Th and 234U/238U measurements using energy-filtered ICP Magnetic sector multiple collector mass spectrometry. International Journal of Mass Spectrometry and Ion Processes 171, 105–117.
  74. McElhinny, M.W., Senanayake, W.E., 1982. Variations in the geomagnetic dipole 1: The past 50000 years. Journal of Geomagnetism and Geoelectricity 34 (1), 39–51.
  75. Meese, D.A., Gow, A.J., Grootes, P., Mayewski, P.A., Ram, M., Stuiver, M., Taylor, K.C., Waddington, E.D., Zielinski, G.A., 1994. The accumulation record from the GISP2 core as an indicator of climate change throughout the Holocene. Science 266, 1680–1682.
  76. Meese, D.A., Gow, A.J., Alley, R.B., Zielinski, G.A., Grootes, P.M., Ram, M., Taylor, K.C., Mayewski, P.A., Bolzan, J.F., 1997. The Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 depth-age scale: methods and results. Journal of Geophysical Research, C, Oceans 102 (12), 26411–26423.
  77. Mikolajewicz, U., 1996. A meltwater induced collapse of the ‘conveyor belt’ thermohaline circulation and its influence on the distribution of D14C and d18O in the oceans: Max-Planck-Institut fur Meteortologie Report, no. 189.
  78. Min, G.R., Edwards, R.L., Taylor, F.W., Recy, J., Gallup, C.D., Beck, J.W., 1995. Annual cycles of U/Ca in coral skeletons and U/Ca thermometry. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 59, 2025–2042.
  79. Mortlock, R.A., Fairbanks, R.G., Chiu, T.-C., Rubenstone, J., 2005. 230Th/234U/238U and 231Pa/235U ages from a single fossil coral fragment by multi-collector magnetic-sector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 69 (3), 649–657.
  80. Muscheler, R., Beer, J., Wagner, G., Finkel, R.C., 2000. Changes in deep-water formation during the Younger Dryas event inferred from 10Be and 14C records. Nature 408, 567–570.
  81. Nadeau, M.-J., Schleicher, M., Grootes, P.M., Erlenkeuser, H., Gottdang, A., Mous, D.J.W., Sarnthein, J.M., Willkomm, H., 1997. The Leibniz-Labor AMS facility at the Christian-Albrechts University, Kiel, Germany. Nuclear Instruments and Methods B in Physics Research Section 123, 22–30.
  82. Nadeau, M.-J., Grootes, P.M., Schleicher, M., Hasselberg, P., Rieck, A., Bitterling, M., 1998. Sample throughput and data quality at the Leibniz-Labor AMS Facility. Radiocarbon 40, 39–245.
  83. Nadeau, M.-J., Grootes, P.M., Voelker, A., Bruhn, F., Duhr, A., Oriwall, A., 2001. Carbonate 14C Background: Does it have multiple personalities? Radiocarbon 43, 169–176.
  84. Paterne, M., Ayliffe, L.K., Arnold, M., Cabioch, G., Tisnerat-Laborde, N., Hatte, C., Douville, E., Bard, E., 2004. Paired 14C and 230Th/U dating of surface corals from the Marquesas and Vanuatu (sub-equatorial pacific) in the 3000 to 15,000 Cal yr interval. Radiocarbon 46 (2), 551–566.
  85. Pickett, D.A., Murrell, M.T., Williams, R.W., 1994. Determination of Femtogram Quantities of Protactinium in Geologic Samples by Thermal Ionization Mass Spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry 66, 1044–1049.
  86. Reimer, P.J., Hughen, K.A., Guilderson, T.P., McCormac, G., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Barratt, P., Beck, J.W., Buck, C.E., Damon, P.E., Friedrich, M., Kromer, B., Ramsey, C.B., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., van der Plicht, J., 2002. Preliminary report of the first workshop of the IntCal04 radiocarbon calibration/comparison working group. Radiocarbon 44 (3), 653–661.
  87. 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., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004. IntCal04 Terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 ka BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058.
  88. Renne, P.R., Karner, D.B., Ludwig, K.R., 1998. Absolute ages aren’t exactly. Science 282, 1840–1841.
  89. Ribaud-Laurenti, A., Hamelin, B., Montaggioni, L., Cardinal, D., 2001. Diagenesis and its impact on Sr/Ca ration in Holocene Acropora corals. International Journal of Earth Sciences 90 (2), 438–451.
  90. Schramm, A., Stein, M., Goldstein, S.L., 2000. 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 175, 27–40.
  91. Shackleton, N.J., Fairbanks, R.G., Chiu, T.-C., Parrenin, F., 2004. Absolute calibration of the Greenland time scale: implications for Antarctic time scales and for D14C. Quaternary Science Reviews 23, 1513–1522.
  92. Southon, J., Roberts, M., 2000. Ten years of sourcery at CAMS/LLNL—evolution of a Cs ion source. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 172, 257–261.
  93. Spurk, M., Friedrich, M., Hofmann, J., Remmele, S., Frenzel, B., Leuschner, H.H., Kromer, B., 1998. Revisions and extension of the Hohenheim oak and pine chronologies: New evidence about the timing of the Younger Dryas/Preboreal transition. Radiocarbon 40, 1107–1116.
  94. Steier, P., Rom, W., Puchegger, S., 2001. New methods and critical aspects in Bayesian mathematics for 14C calibration. Radiocarbon 43, 373–380.
  95. Stocker, T.F., Wright, D.G., 1996. Rapid changes in ocean circulation and atmospheric radiocarbon. Paleoceanography 11, 773–795.
  96. Stuiver, M., 1961. Variations in radiocarbon concentration and sunspot activity. Journal of Geophysical Research 66, 273–276.
  97. Stuiver, M., 1982. A high-precision calibration of the AD radiocarbon time scale. Radiocarbon 24, 1–26.
  98. Stuiver, M., Polach, H.A., 1977. Discussion: reporting 14C data. Radiocarbon 19, 355–363.
  99. Stuiver, M., Quay, P.D., 1980. Changes in atmospheric carbon-14 attributed to a variable Sun. Science 207, 11–19.
  100. Stuiver, M., Pearson, G.W., 1986. High-precision calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950- 500BC. Radiocarbon 28 (2B), 805–838.
  101. Stuiver, M., Kromer, B., Becker, B., Ferguson, C.W., 1986. Radiocarbon age calibration back to 13,300 years BP and the 14C age matching of the German Oak and US bristlecone pine chronologies. Radiocarbon 28 (2B), 969–979.
  102. Stuiver, M., Grootes, P.M., Braziunas, T.F., 1995. The GISP2 d18O climate record of the past 16,500 years and the role of the Sun, ocean, and volcanoes. Quaternary Research 44, 341–354.
  103. Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Beck, J.W., Burr, G.S., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., van der Plicht, J., Spurk, M., 1998a. INTCAL98 radiocarbon age calibration, 24,000-0 cal BP. Radiocarbon 40, 1041–1083.
  104. Stuiver, M., Reimer, P.J., Braziunas, T.F., 1998b. High-precision radiocarbon age calibration for terrestrial and marine samples. Radiocarbon 40, 1127–1151.
  105. Suess, H.E., 1955. Radiocarbon concentration in modern wood. Science 122, 415–417.
  106. Suess, H.E., 1968. Climatic changes, solar activity, and the cosmic-ray production rate of natural radiocarbon. Meteorological Monographs 8, 146–150.
  107. Suess, H.E., 1970. The three causes of the secular C14 fluctuations, their amplitudes and time constants. In: Radiocarbon variations and absolute chronology, Nobel Symposium. Nobelstiftelsen, Stockholm, International, pp. 595–605.
  108. Taylor, K.C., Hammer, C.U., Alley, R.B., Clausen, H.B., Dahl- Jensen, D., Gow, A.J., Gunderstrup, N.S., Kipfstuhl, J., Moore, J.C., Waddington, E.D., 1993. Electrical conductivity measurements from the GISP2 and GRIP Greenland ice cores. Nature 366, 549–552.
  109. Urmos, J.P., 1985. Oxygen isotopes, sea levels, and uplift of reef terraces, Araki Island, Vanuatu. M.S. dissertation, Cornell University.
  110. van der Plicht, J.W., Beck, J.W., Bard, E., Baillie, M.G.L., Blackwell, P.G., Buck, C.E., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T.P., Hughen, K.A., Kromer, B., McCormac, F.G., Bronk Ramsey, C., Reimer, O.J., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Richards, D.A., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004. NOTCAL04-comparison/ caliberation 14C records 26–50 cal kyr BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1225–1238.
  111. Voelker, A.H.L., Grootes, P.M., Nadeau, M.-J., Sarntheim, M., 2000. Radiocarbon levels in the Iceland Sea from 25–53 kyr and their link to the earth’s magnetic field intensity. Radiocarbon 42, 437–452.
  112. Vogel, J.S., Southon, J.R., Nelson, D.E., 1987. Catalyst and binder effects in the use of filamentous graphite for AMS. Nuclear Instruments and Methods in Physics Research B 29, 50–56.
  113. Vogel, J.C., Kronfeld, J., 1997. Calibration of radiocarbon dates for the late Pleistocene using U/Th dates on stalagmites. Radiocarbon 39, 27–32.
  114. Wahba, G., 1990. Spline Models for Observational Data. Society For Industrial and Applied Mathematic, Philadelphia, PA 169pp.
  115. Walder, A.J., Freedman, P.A., 1992. Isotopic ratio measurement using a double focusing magnetic sector mass analyzer with an inductively coupled plasma as an ion source. Journal of Analytical Atomic Spectrometry 7, 571–575.
  116. Yokoyama, Y., Esat, T.M., Lambeck, K., Fifield, L.K., 2000. Last ice age millennial scale climate changes recorded in Huon Peninsula corals. Radiocarbon 42 (3), 383–401.

(*) note that I have added numbers to this list for quicker reference in this debate.

The papers in question for the graph are:

  1. (Reimer et al., 2004) = 87. 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., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004. IntCal04 Terrestrial radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 ka BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1029–1058.
  2. (Kitagawa and van der Plicht, 2000) = 66. Kitagawa, H., van der Plicht, J., 2000. Atmospheric radiocarbon calibration beyond 11,900 cal B.P. from Lake Suigetsu laminated sediments. Radiocarbon 42, 369–380.
  3. (Beck et al., 2001) = 8. Beck, J.W., Richards, D.A., Edwards, R.L., Silverman, B.W., Smart, P.L., Donahue, D.J., Herrera-Osterheld, S., Burr, G.S., Calsoyas, L., Jull, A.J.T., Biddulph, D., 2001. Extremely large variations of atmospheric 14C concentration during the last glacial period. Science 292, 2453–2458.
  4. (Hughen et al., 2004) = 61. Hughen, K.A., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Beck, J.W., Bertand, 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., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C.B., Reimer, P.J., Reimer, R.W., Remmele, S., Southon, J.R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F.W., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C.E., 2004b. Marine04 Marine radiocarbon age calibration, 0–26 ka BP. Radiocarbon 46, 1059–1086.
  5. (Voelker et al., 2000) = 111. Voelker, A.H.L., Grootes, P.M., Nadeau, M.-J., Sarntheim, M., 2000. Radiocarbon levels in the Iceland Sea from 25–53 kyr and their link to the earth’s magnetic field intensity. Radiocarbon 42, 437–452.
  6. (Schramm et al., 2000) = 90. Schramm, A., Stein, M., Goldstein, S.L., 2000. 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 175, 27–40.
  7. (Yokoyama et al., 2000) = Yokoyama, Y., Esat, T.M., Lambeck, K., Fifield, L.K., 2000. Last ice age millennial scale climate changes recorded in Huon Peninsula corals. Radiocarbon 42 (3), 383–401.

So those are the seven papers you should read, quote from and criticize in relation to the curve above.

As a start.

But I also expect that if you were truly interested in this subject that you would read every paper in the reference list -- that is what a scientific critic would do, rather than someone who is ignorant of 99% of this work throwing shit at the wall to see if it sticks.

Notice that if you keep challenging the new information presented that you now have 116 peer reviewed papers to challenge with some uneducated fantasy mechanism that makes all these scientists such naive, blundering and incompetent bufoons that they have never considered the accuracy of their study in any way.

Don't you think to summarize and conclude you have won the debate is a little early if you take into account I haven't even replied to your posts?

Also to post a picture of a plummeting plane is a little premature in my eyes.

So challenge the dendrochronologies with some modicum of understanding of the work that has gone into them, not with uneducated fantasy.

You can start with these papers:

  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., Paul E 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., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C. E., 2004, INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP. Radiocarbon 46, No 3, pages 1029-1058(30).

  2. Friedrich, M., Remmele, S., Kromer, B., Hofmann, J., Spurk, M., Kaiser, K.F., Orcel, C., Kuppers, M., 2004. The 12,460-year Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring chronology from central Europe—a unique annual record for radiocarbon calibration and paleoenvironment reconstructions. Radiocarbon 46, No 3, pages 1111–1122.

Articles in Radiocarbon can be found here:
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/
(opens with latest issue articles - go to sidebar to navigate the archive by issue)
Issue 46 No 3 index is at https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/.../issue/view/210/showToc

The abstract for the first paper (INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP) is here with the Full PDF Download Here

quote:
The relation between North American and European wood has been studied using bristlecone pine (BCP) and European oak (German oak and Irish oak), respectively. Discrepancies have become evident over the years, in particular when the German oak was corrected by a dendro-shift of 41 yr towards older ages (Kromer et al. 1996). Attempts were made to resolve the discrepancies by remeasuring BCP samples, measured earlier in Tucson (Linick et al. 1986). The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically-dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 ± 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements. Applying this shift to the Tucson data results in a close fit to the wiggles of the German oak, which would not occur if there were an error in the dendrochronology of either series. Because of this offset, the IntCal working group has decided not to include the BCP record in IntCal04.

Note that the 37 year difference over ~8,000 years of chronology was considered too large for this calibration. This is an error of less than 0.5%, with the Bristlecone Pine chronology younger than the oak chronology.

The abstract for the second paper (The 12,460-year Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring chronology from Central Europe; a unique annual record for radiocarbon calibration and paleoenvironment reconstructions) is here with the Full PDF Download Here

quote:
... This new PPC has been linked dendrochronologically to the absolute Holocene oak chronology, extending the absolute, tree-ring-based time scale back to 12,410 BP (10,461 BC). The Younger Dryas-Preboreal transition is observed in the ring-widths of our pines (Friedrich et al. 1999) at 11,590 BP (9641 BC); thus, the absolute tree-ring chronology now covers 820 yr of the Younger Dryas and the entire Holocene. The full range is 12,460 yr (10,461 BC–AD 2000).

Don't forget to check the references as well ...

Also to assume my link on Lake Nisan was irrelevant is one point, but to post about a Red Herring Logical Fallacy is going a little far considering you were wrong about the irrelevance.

Except that I wasn't wrong about the irrelevance -- your paper had nothing to do with 14C data and correlations with actual age. An honest debater would use the appropriate paper, not one picked seemingly at random.

This discussion is in its infancy, please do not mistake my busy lifestyle and slow replies for avoidance. I am looking forward to your open mind during the rest of our discussion, hoping you will have a mature approach to the rest of the discussion.

No, your participation is in its infancy. Both coyote and I have years of involvement with it. My participation spans over 8 years on this forum since I began the first Age Correlations thread, now in its fourth version with over 1236 posts ... with no evidence that the ages given are false.

You provide me with objective empirical evidence rather than fantasy wishful hokum and you will see how open-minded I am. Try to snow me with BS and fantasy and you will find my skepticism of your argument difficult to beat.

And if you want a mature discussion then you can stop insulting the thousands of scientist who put their life work into this field by presenting childish complaints and wishful fantasies that a little research on your part would show you their fallacy.

I repeat: do you really think that all all these scientists (see reference list for a sampling) are such naive, blundering and incompetent bufoons that they have never considered the difference between annual and other effects?

Further, if you want to have a mature discussion then you will provide objective empirical evidence to support your position and explain not just why any single system is wrong but why they are all wrong in the same manner, even when they depend on totally different mechanisms.

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 26 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2013 3:43 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2013 3:49 PM RAZD has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 29 of 119 (711498)
11-19-2013 3:35 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by RAZD
11-17-2013 2:00 PM


Re: Ignorance and Misunderstanding - Uranium and Thorium
"Uranium-Thorium" is a dating method, not an element with a half life.
Uranium is one element, Thorium is another.
Both Uranium and Thorium have a number of isotopes. Isotopes are a family of types of the same element with the same number of protons in the nucleus but different numbers of neutrons. Each isotope will have a different half-life, except for stable isotopes which do not decay and therefore do not have a half-life.
The Uranium referred to is 234U with a half-life of 245,000 years.
The Thorium referred to is 230Th with a half life of 75,000 years.
The half-lives of both 234U and 230Th have been measured in the laboratory.

All this is true, I should have worded my point more carefully. There are various ways to establish the half-lives of isotopes, possibly the most accurate would be to test the ratio of parent/daughter of the same sample, in a mass spectrometer over a precise time period (eg 10 years). Another method would be to use instruments to test the number of decay events, and to establish a rate of decay from that. However in actually determining the half lives of thorium and uranium the following link gives no hint that either method was used. Instead the actual ratios of parent/daughter and their subsequent half-lies were determined using samples of rocks dated using other methods.
http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/...5Fairbanks+table.pdf
"we measured 234U/238U and 230TH/238U atomic ratios in 4 different materials that were likely to have behaved as closed systems for 10`6 years."

Unless you can show me otherwise it appears the most accurate calibration of uranium/thorium dating is calibrated using uranium-uranium dated samples (234U/238U). Ratios were determined in a laboratory using mass spectrometry, but actual decay events were not measured in a laboratory. This could open up a can of worms because you now have to prove the accuracy of radiometric dating to verify your carbon dates.

The age is calculated by a purely mathematical formula where the variables are:
the half-life of uranium-234,
the half-life of thorium 230
the amount of uranium-234 in the sample and
the amount of thorium-230 in the sample
The formula will always return exactly the same age for the same inputs, and thus the accuracy and precision of the dated relies on the accuracy and precision of the measurements.

The important point here is to determine how accurately and how independently they measured the half-lives of thorium 230 and uranium 234. You are welcome to post evidence that Ur-th dating was measured independently of other dating methods.

Conclusion

The consilience of these two completely independent systems provides very high confidence in these results -- all the data is provided with over 99% precision and accuracy.

I have yet to see any proof that Ur-Th decay rates were established independently of calibration with other dating methods. If they were calibrated against other dating methods then this in itself explains the consilience and makes your conclusion irrelevant.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2013 2:00 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 6:02 PM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 101 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 30 of 119 (711500)
11-19-2013 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by RAZD
11-19-2013 2:54 PM


Re: Dry Lakes and Rabbit Holes and Rational Conclusions and Cognitive Dissonance
No, your participation is in its infancy. Both coyote and I have years of involvement with it. My participation spans over 8 years on this forum since I began the first Age Correlations thread, now in its fourth version with over 1236 posts ... with no evidence that the ages given are false.

You provide me with objective empirical evidence rather than fantasy wishful hokum and you will see how open-minded I am. Try to snow me with BS and fantasy and you will find my skepticism of your argument difficult to beat.

And if you want a mature discussion then you can stop insulting the thousands of scientist who put their life work into this field by presenting childish complaints and wishful fantasies that a little research on your part would show you their fallacy.

I repeat: do you really think that all all these scientists (see reference list for a sampling) are such naive, blundering and incompetent bufoons that they have never considered the difference between annual and other effects?

Further, if you want to have a mature discussion then you will provide objective empirical evidence to support your position and explain not just why any single system is wrong but why they are all wrong in the same manner, even when they depend on totally different mechanisms.

Enjoy.

I'm ignoring your whole post. Its too long and immature for good discussion. If you would like to re-post your most relevant points, you are welcome. I am making precise points, and if you are able to answer the actual points I make in a more succint manner I would appreciate the exchange.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 2:54 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 5:31 PM mindspawn has responded

  
Prev1
2
345678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017