Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 122 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-25-2017 9:44 PM
410 online now:
Asgara (AdminAsgara), edge, Faith, jar, kjsimons, NoNukes, Phat (AdminPhat) (7 members, 403 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 812,092 Year: 16,698/21,208 Month: 2,587/3,593 Week: 54/646 Day: 54/78 Hour: 2/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Author Topic:   Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 31 of 119 (711508)
11-19-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by mindspawn
11-19-2013 5:58 AM


Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration
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.

Yet you failed to specify that in your post.

Curiously, the fact remains that the Irish Oak and the German Oak and Pine chronologies are not in precipitation sensitive environments, they are indeed annual rings, and they agree with the Bristlecone Pine chronology for over 8,000 years with 99.5% agreement.

This alone demonstrates that the Bristlecone Pine IS an annual ring chronology.

It also should come as no surprise to you that the thousands of dendrochronologist are actually able to discern the difference between rainfall patterns and annual patterns in the formation of rings.

In addition, I have shown that Suigetsu Lake varves are not sensitive to rainfall\runoff patterns in message 23: Of Diatoms and Clay and Lake Suigetsu varves, but are annual layers.

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.

Now take another step back, because even major weather events are not the same. Cut the BS and present data of these 11 to 12 major patterns: I'm sure that meteorologists will be mighty interested in this made up factoid.

The fact that this is BS is more than adequately demonstrated by the differences between Ireland, Germany and the White Mountain peaks, as noted Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration.

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.

Only if you ignore the actual data, the actual ecological information, and the high degree of replication of age with the other two dendrochronologies and the fact that the "year with no summer" was properly dated to 1816. Your opinion on whether they can grow on just snow-melt is irrelevant without actual evidence. Sadly the actual evidence is otherwise.

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

quote:
Simply put, dendrochronology is the dating of past events (climatic changes) through study of tree ring growth. Botanists, foresters and archaeologists began using this technique during the early part of the 20th century. Discovered by A.E. Douglass from the University of Arizona, who noted that the wide rings of certain species of trees were produced during wet years and, inversely, narrow rings during dry seasons.

Each year a tree adds a layer of wood to its trunk and branches thus creating the annual rings we see when viewing a cross section. New wood grows from the cambium layer between the old wood and the bark. In the spring, when moisture is plentiful, the tree devotes its energy to producing new growth cells. These first new cells are large, but as the summer progresses their size decreases until, in the fall, growth stops and cells die, with no new growth appearing until the next spring. The contrast between these smaller old cells and next year's larger new cells is enough to establish a ring, thus making counting possible.

Lets say the sample was taken from a standing 4,000 year-old (but long dead) bristlecone. Its outer growth rings were compared with the inner rings of a living tree. If a pattern of individual ring widths in the two samples prove to be identical at some point, we can carry dating further into the past. With this method of matching overlapping patterns found in different wood samples, bristlecone chronologies have been established almost 9,000 years into the past.

A number of tree samples must be examined and cross dated from any given site to avoid the possibility of all the collected data showing a missing or extra ring. Further checking is done until no inconsistency appears. Often several sample cores are taken from each tree examined. These must be compared not only with samples from other trees at the same location but also with those at other sites in the region. Additionally, the average of all data provides the best estimate of climate averages. A large portion of the effects of non-climatic factors that occur in the various site data is minimized by this averaging scheme.


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

These are both to the wet side of the mountains, they are at significantly lower elevations, and in the area where the mountain range strips the air of moisture. This is NOT the weather where the trees are growing.

Let me repeat, so you can read it again:

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.

Anything not on the peak of the mountains where the trees are will have different climate, and the trees come from several different locations in the mountains

quote:
Weather here is cold and dry. The average max.-min. temperatures range from about 70°F (21°C) to 37°F (3°C) at the base, and from 36°F (2°C) to -26° (-32°C) in the alpine zone. ... Winds blowing along the crest can blow most of the snow from some areas, leaving little for trees like the bristlecone at the treeline - 11,200' (3414m). ... The soil quality is poor, and at its poorest in the alpine zone. This factor combined with a short growing season, results in sparse and delicate flora. ... Because these soil types inhibit the growth of other plants, they provide a competition-free arena for the slow-growing bristlecone pines.

Note temperatures, short growing season and slow growing -- there is no warm summer rain, there are no growth spurts, and there certainly are not 11 to 12 major storms a year.

" ... Annual precipitation is less than 12 inches (30cm), most of which arrives as snow in winter. ... "

If we take 60% (low) of the 12" as snow that is 7.2" of water available from spring snow melt.

The other 40% divided by your mysterious 11 to 12 event scenario is 4.8/12 or 0.4" of rain per event and this is totally insufficient to provide robust growth spurt anywhere near the 7.2" (or more) from snow melting. In addition the growing season is so short that your 11 to 12 storms would be occurring in rapid sequence, with no opportunity for the cells to die off sufficiently to form the winter band of the growth ring.

These trees have adapted to this extreme environment, with a short growing season and a slow spurt of growth each year from snow melt.

They are annual rings, and denial of this documented fact is delusion.

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.

Dry spells of less than a month duration are technically not dry spells but ordinary weather. All that is needed is that the water replenish the water-table where the trees grow. In the case of the Irish and German dendrochronologies this is not an issue due to the amount of normal rainfall.

Once again we see that these two dendrochronologies refute your argument: they are annual rings and they agree with the Bristlecone Pine chronology with 99.5% accuracy.

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?

Because they are in environments that preserve them.

http://www.ashtarcommandcrew.net/...topics/the-ancient-trees

quote:
... Prometheus was a living member of a population of bristlecone pine trees growing near the tree line on the lateral moraine of a former glacier on Wheeler Peak, in Great Basin National Park, eastern Nevada. Wheeler Peak is the highest mountain in the Snake Range, and the highest mountain entirely within the state of Nevada. The bristlecone pine population on this mountain is divided into at least two distinct sub-populations, ...

Methuselah -is a Great Basin Bristlecone Pine (Pinus longaeva) tree growing high in the White Mountains of Inyo County in eastern California. Its measured age of 4,842 years makes it the world's oldest known living tree. ... The picture is not an actual picture of Methuselah, but it likely looks very similar.

Among the White Mountain specimens, the oldest trees are found on north-facing slopes, with an average of 2,000 years, as compared to the 1,000 year average on the southern slopes. The climate and the durability of their wood can preserve them long after death, with dead trees as old as 7,000 years persisting next to live ones.


So you have dead trees still standing older than any of the living trees. The environment also preserves fallen trees.

The oaks are often found in marshes and peat bogs where the acidic water preserves them.

Note that the record for oldest living tree is now 5063 years old this year.

http://www.rmtrr.org/oldlist.htm

quote:
A new record holder was recently recognized, a Pinus longaeva growing in the White Mountains of eastern California. The date on this tree was reported to me by Tom Harlan. The tree was cored by Edmund Schulman in the late 1950s but he never had a chance to date it before he died. Tom worked up the core only recently, and knows which tree it is. The tree is still alive, and the age given below, 5062, is the tree's age as of the growing season of 2012.

The more time passes the more evidence there is of old growth and an older earth.

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.

But they can (and are) by being included in the cross-dating check.

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.

You will find that I have provided links to the particular post on that thread for the relevant data. I have also presented that data on this thread. That you refuse to look at the information is not my problem.

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

Curiously I gave you this reference in Message 28:

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.

Note that they identify the Holocene climate from the tree ring data:

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).

The correlations and consilience of data are still not explained in your fantasy argument.

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 27 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2013 5:58 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2013 5:45 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 32 of 119 (711510)
11-19-2013 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by mindspawn
11-19-2013 3:49 PM


Re: Dry Lakes and Rabbit Holes and Rational Conclusions and Cognitive Dissonance
I'm ignoring your whole post. Its too long and immature for good discussion. ...

Oh boo hoo.

If you want to use this excuse to avoid looking at reality, I can understand that. This is what Cognitive Dissonance predicts.

You come here and arrogantly and ignorantly insult the intelligence, education, learning and dedication of thousands of scientists with an argument based on fantasy, wishful thinking and belief, and you expect me to treat you like some special savant ... when it is BS -- I've shown it to be BS.

If you want a mature discussion then you (a) need to read all my posts and (b) answer them with evidence supported arguments, not BS.

... 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.

No you are not making "precise points" you are grabbing at straws. Precise points are supported by objective empirical evidence.

But okay ...

quote:
Message 28:

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.


Better?

If you want to discuss scientific studies you need to be prepared to do the reading.

Curiously I don't think any of that post is immature at all, especially given the nature of your arguments, I think it is accurate and to the point.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added


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 30 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2013 3:49 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2013 2:27 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 33 of 119 (711511)
11-19-2013 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by mindspawn
11-19-2013 3:35 PM


Re: Ignorance and Misunderstanding - Uranium and Thorium
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.

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 information is in the paper. All you need to do is read it and follow the references and then read those. That is what a scientific critic would do. I quoted it before.

quote:
... 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.

Here is the reference, again (it is no 17 in Message 28):

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.

http://www.researchgate.net/...f_uranium-234_and_thorium-230
Full PDF Download

quote:
Abstract
We have re-determined the 234U and 230Th half-lives to be 245,250 +/- 490 years (2σ ) and 75,690 +/- 230 years (2σ ), respectively. Using high precision thermal ionization mass spectrometric (TIMS) methods, 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 or more: zircons with concordant 238U–206Pb, 235U–207Pb, and 232Th–208Pb ages, Iceland Spar, Table Mountain Latite, and aliquots of a solution of Harwell uraninite (HU-1). We calibrated the TIMS multipliers using U-500, U and Th gravimetric standards, and U double spike. Consistent 234U/238U values for all measured materials and consistent 230Th/238U values for all materials with the exception of our HU-1 solution support the secular equilibrium status. The new half-lives agree within error with previously determined values; however, errors in our values are generally smaller than those in the earlier determinations. Our 234U half-life is about 3‰ higher than that commonly used in 230Th dating laboratories and our 230Th half-life is about 4‰ higher. 230Th ages calculated with the new half-lives are generally older than those calculated with the previously used half-lives. The difference in age, though, is small throughout the 230Th age range because our revised 234U and 230Th half-lives are offset from earlier values in the same sense (both to higher values). In the case of dating materials older than 350 ka in laboratories that rely solely on gravimetric standardization procedures, use of our decay constants and their associated errors will considerably reduce the errors in age arising from uncertainty in the decay constants. (c) 2000 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved.

Measured in the lab.

Note that the new half-lives agree within the margin of error with previously determined values and that the margins of error are reduced in the new determinations. The 234U half-life is about 3‰ longer than previous values and the 230Th half-life is about 4‰ longer, so they confirm previous lab measurements with a difference of only 0.3% (older) for 234U and 0.4% (older) for 230Th (the ‰ symbol is parts per thousand).

The accuracy is 99.8% for 234U and 99.7% for 230Th.

... 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.

This is you not reading the article and following the references -- and then jumping to conclusions. You are confusing correlation with calibration.

They measured the age of the coral by uranium/thorium dating AND by uranium-uranium to show that they got the same results, thus giving a highly consilient accurate and precise calendar age calculation for the coral samples.

Again, this is independent information that is then compared to the 14C data from the same core sample to show the correlation between them:

This precise correlation with highly accurate data allows calibration of the 14C dates to increase the accuracy of those dates.

The earth is old, very very old: get used to it.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added links

Edited by RAZD, : link

Edited by RAZD, : abstract symbol corrections

Edited by RAZD, : added links


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 29 by mindspawn, posted 11-19-2013 3:35 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2013 1:43 AM RAZD has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 34 of 119 (711539)
11-20-2013 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by RAZD
11-19-2013 6:02 PM


Re: Ignorance and Misunderstanding - Uranium and Thorium
Measured in the lab.

Note that the new half-lives agree within the margin of error with previously determined values and that the margins of error are reduced in the new determinations. The 234U half-life is about 3‰ longer than previous values and the 230Th half-life is about 4‰ longer, so they confirm previous lab measurements with a difference of only 0.3% (older) for 234U and 0.4% (older) for 230Th (the ‰ symbol is parts per thousand).

Yes they did use the mass spectrometer in the lab, but that was used to determine the relative ratios of variously dated samples. How the samples were dated is a separate question, and the article seems to indicate the samples were dated using Uranium-Uranium dating, which already have "accepted" half -lives. It appears we have an absolute stalemate here until you present further evidence for your position. We will have to agree to disagree on how the latest half-lives of 230Th and 234U were established.

This is you not reading the article and following the references -- and then jumping to conclusions. You are confusing correlation with calibration.

They measured the age of the coral by uranium/thorium dating AND by uranium-uranium to show that they got the same results, thus giving a highly consilient accurate and precise calendar age calculation for the coral samples.

Your "read the article and all the references" approach does not cut it. It reminds me of your comment about cognitive dissonance and having an open mind. With all those references at your disposal I am hoping that you are able to find the part that supports your position that the half-lives used in Th-Ur dating are independently established.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 6:02 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2013 9:25 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 35 of 119 (711540)
11-20-2013 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by RAZD
11-19-2013 5:31 PM


Re: Dry Lakes and Rabbit Holes and Rational Conclusions and Cognitive Dissonance
Oh boo hoo.

If you want to use this excuse to avoid looking at reality, I can understand that. This is what Cognitive Dissonance predicts.

You come here and arrogantly and ignorantly insult the intelligence, education, learning and dedication of thousands of scientists with an argument based on fantasy, wishful thinking and belief, and you expect me to treat you like some special savant ... when it is BS -- I've shown it to be BS.

If you want a mature discussion then you (a) need to read all my posts and (b) answer them with evidence supported arguments, not BS.

Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with well-established theories is in your eyes arrogant. Their views are BS? If this was true then science would never progress. To challenge the establishment and keep re-testing theories is part of what strengthens a theory and should be welcomed by the scientific community. Maybe we would reach understanding through discussion if both parties can present their evidence in an unemotional scientific manner. My prediction is that your replies will get less succint, more swearing, and less attempts to actually answer my questions.

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.

I agree that Irish Oak and German Oak and many bristlecone pine trees currently show annual rings. I stated this in my post 27. This explains the consilient records. I specifically asked you in post 27 to present your evidence that the ancient white mountain Bristlecone Pines show the 1816 "year without a summer". I'm waiting for your proof of this.

I explained that after the cooler spring snow melt , bristlecone pines experience dry spells and then still experience significant summer rains. I gave you a link in post 27 that shows evidence for this within the last 12 months. So there has to be more than one ring due to the dry spells interrupting growth, and then the ideal summer rainfalls re-stimulating growth until winter stops growth again.

I asked you to present your evidence on how the older dead bristlecone pines did not rot so that rings can be analyzed thousands of years later.

In post 27 I also posted evidence of Europe undergoing dryer spells during the Holocene which would affect German/Irish chronologies.

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.

Its the logical response in a debate to question the evidence presented. 7 lines of supporting evidence were used to support carbon dating, the evidence was presented, and I'm disputing them all.

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:

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).
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

That's not how these debates work. If you have specific evidence in response to anything I say, quote it or present it. Your approach of giving numerous references is an absolute copout. I like scientific debates, but to bombard me with references without taking the time to point to the relevant sections is incorrect. When I post a link, I normally quote the relevant section or tell you what point I am making from the link in order to make it easier for both of us to continue the discussion.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 5:31 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2013 1:06 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 36 of 119 (711543)
11-20-2013 5:45 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by RAZD
11-19-2013 5:10 PM


Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration
Yet you failed to specify that in your post.

Curiously, the fact remains that the Irish Oak and the German Oak and Pine chronologies are not in precipitation sensitive environments, they are indeed annual rings, and they agree with the Bristlecone Pine chronology for over 8,000 years with 99.5% agreement.

This alone demonstrates that the Bristlecone Pine IS an annual ring chronology.

It also should come as no surprise to you that the thousands of dendrochronologist are actually able to discern the difference between rainfall patterns and annual patterns in the formation of rings.

In my post 27 I clearly agreed that Irish Oak, German Oak and some Bristlecone Pine trees show annual rings and are not in precipitation sensitive environments. So I fail to see why you keep emphasizing a point that we are in agreement about. I asked you to show proof that specifically the living ancient White Mountain Bristlecone Pines also agree with the short term chronology (eg 1816). Could you kindly provide me with a link or post some evidence. This is my second request, my first request was in post 27.

As for experts recognising the difference, could you post evidence for the differences that are seen. Like I have said, the very nature of the rainfall patters in the white mountains and the dry soils requires multiple rings, your spring explanation is not consistent with actually recorded rainfall patterns in summer and the bristlecone pines favoring of summer growth conditions (temperature sensitivity):

http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20348.full
"Increasing temperature at high elevations is likely a prominent factor in the modern unprecedented level of growth for Pinus longaeva at these sites."

Now take another step back, because even major weather events are not the same. Cut the BS and present data of these 11 to 12 major patterns: I'm sure that meteorologists will be mighty interested in this made up factoid.

The fact that this is BS is more than adequately demonstrated by the differences between Ireland, Germany and the White Mountain peaks, as noted Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration.

I presented my evidence in post 27. I posted 4 links of actual rainfall patterns in various locations around the world, 2 for the White Mountains, 1 for Jordan, 1 for Cariaco basin. There are no matching weather patterns, but generally 10-12 major wet spells interspersed with dry spells in many locations around earth.

I wonder why you keep mentioning Ireland and Germany when my post 27 was clear that I agreed with you about annual rings in those areas currently. They are in wetter locations , its the dry soils that interrupt tree growth.

Only if you ignore the actual data, the actual ecological information, and the high degree of replication of age with the other two dendrochronologies and the fact that the "year with no summer" was properly dated to 1816. Your opinion on whether they can grow on just snow-melt is irrelevant without actual evidence. Sadly the actual evidence is otherwise

I gave you evidence of actual daily rainfalls in the White Mountain area. I also gave you evidence that tree growth is precipitation sensitive, especially in dry soils. I'm still waiting for your evidence that specifically the ancient living Bristlecone Pines of the white Mountain area show evidence for 1816. Without such evidence it appears doubtful that these ancient Bristlecone Pines have recent matches with European trees that do have annual tree rings. I have no problem with earlier matches, these matches form part of my argument as well.

These are both to the wet side of the mountains, they are at significantly lower elevations, and in the area where the mountain range strips the air of moisture. This is NOT the weather where the trees are growing.

Incorrect. I specifically found two weather stations on the east side of the Sierra Mountains, not on the wetter side. They are not in the exact location, but are the closest stations to that location. The actual snow proportion recorded are not as high as your quote, but even so please tell me how a few inches of rainfall in the warmer season between two dry spells would not cause a growth ring.

Note temperatures, short growing season and slow growing -- there is no warm summer rain, there are no growth spurts, and there certainly are not 11 to 12 major storms a year.

" ... Annual precipitation is less than 12 inches (30cm), most of which arrives as snow in winter. ... "

If we take 60% (low) of the 12" as snow that is 7.2" of water available from spring snow melt.

The other 40% divided by your mysterious 11 to 12 event scenario is 4.8/12 or 0.4" of rain per event and this is totally insufficient to provide robust growth spurt anywhere near the 7.2" (or more) from snow melting. In addition the growing season is so short that your 11 to 12 storms would be occurring in rapid sequence, with no opportunity for the cells to die off sufficiently to form the winter band of the growth ring.

These trees have adapted to this extreme environment, with a short growing season and a slow spurt of growth each year from snow melt.

They are annual rings, and denial of this documented fact is delusion.

The conditions were duplicated by Lammerts, but I already mentioned this in my message 27, he showed that Bristlecone pines do actually grow multiple growth rings. This is mainly due to the dry spells interrupting growth, and the White Mountain area, air and soil is extremely dry.

Could you kindly show me your evidence that one or two days of rainfall followed by a few weeks of dry spell cannot produce a tree ring because of insufficient dead cells. I would assume fainter thinner rings would form, maybe you can convince me otherwise with hard evidence.

Dry spells of less than a month duration are technically not dry spells but ordinary weather. All that is needed is that the water replenish the water-table where the trees grow. In the case of the Irish and German dendrochronologies this is not an issue due to the amount of normal rainfall.

Once again we see that these two dendrochronologies refute your argument: they are annual rings and they agree with the Bristlecone Pine chronology with 99.5% accuracy.

The chronologies may agree in the past, but I would like to see your evidence of the recent agreement of European trees with these White Mountain trees, especially since the BCP trees are in dry soil and the European trees are not.

So you have dead trees still standing older than any of the living trees. The environment also preserves fallen trees.

The oaks are often found in marshes and peat bogs where the acidic water preserves them.

I was referring to the BCP trees, where there are no marshes and peat bogs. I find it unrealistic that these dead trees would be preserved for ~7000 years while exposed, when even living BCP trees show a large amount of deteriation in their dead regions.

The correlations and consilience of data are still not explained in your fantasy argument.

The consilience is due to scientists cherry picking locations according to a loose match with current carbon dating assumptions. The result is that they choose locations with approximately 10-12 major precipitation events a year, due to the fact that the carbon dates are incorrect by a factor of about 10-12 times. The other locations are seen as unreliable due to various factors, but the underlying reason for seeing the other locations as unreliable is the difficulty to explain the discrepancies with carbon dates. This is why only a few rare locations have consilience in a world where nearly every river and lake should show annual patterns. If they chose actual annual layers the carbon dates would be regularly out by a factor of 10-12 and they would have to re-establish the carbon calibration curve for the period 1800bp and earlier.

The fact that the magnetic field was approximately 50% stronger for long periods in the past and yet carbon dates only show a 10% variance during this period exposes the inaccuracy of carbon dating.

V Bucha calibrated magnetic field intensity according to archaeological dates which are also faulty but can give approximate dates. He found that the magnetic field "rose in intensity from 0.5 times its present value in 4000 BC to a peak of 1.6 times its present value in 400 BC, and it has been slowly declining since then"

This means that for the approximate period 2000 BC until 400 AD the magnetic field was significantly stronger than today, a ten percent variance in radiocarbon dates over that whole period is highly unrealistic considering that :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon-14
Production rates vary "due to variations in the Earth's magnetic field. The latter can create significant variations in carbon-14 production rates"


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by RAZD, posted 11-19-2013 5:10 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2013 2:03 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 11-22-2013 9:17 AM mindspawn has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 37 of 119 (711552)
11-20-2013 9:25 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by mindspawn
11-20-2013 1:43 AM


Re: Ignorance and Misunderstanding - Uranium and Thorium
Your "read the article and all the references" approach does not cut it. It reminds me of your comment about cognitive dissonance and having an open mind. With all those references at your disposal I am hoping that you are able to find the part that supports your position that the half-lives used in Th-Ur dating are independently established.

The measurements were made in the lab, and you have references available to check that the information presented in the article were proper and accurate representations of the science.

I am not your research assistant: if YOU want to find something out YOU look for it.

So far you have provided ZERO evidence in this debate and just keep posting drivel. Your conjecture about mysterious significant storms is not just totally unfounded but totally invalidated by objective empirical evidence, and you want to nit-pick decay constant determinations ...

Yes they did use the mass spectrometer in the lab, but that was used to determine the relative ratios of variously dated samples. How the samples were dated is a separate question, and the article seems to indicate the samples were dated using Uranium-Uranium dating, which already have "accepted" half -lives. It appears we have an absolute stalemate here until you present further evidence for your position. We will have to agree to disagree on how the latest half-lives of 230Th and 234U were established.

Again, that's just you not reading the article for information, but to see if you can nit-pick it and see if there is a sentence or two that you can misinterpret.

quote:
The 230Th method is based on the decay of 238U through two short lived intermediate daughter isotopes to 234U and the decay of 234U to 230Th. The 230Th age equation (Bateman, 1910; Broecker, 1963) includes terms for the decay constants (or half-lives) of all three nuclides. Therefore, accurate and precise values for the half-lives are essential for accurate and precise age determination. Renne et al. (1998) have recently summarized the issue of the accuracy of half-life determinations and implications for the accuracy of different types of radiometric ages. Of the three pertinent nuclides used in 230Th dating, the fractional error in the half-life of 238U, 4.4683 +/- 0.0048 = 10^9 years (2σ, Jaffey et al., 1971), is the smallest. For the remainder of the text, all quoted errors will be at the 2σ level of uncertainty. For the half-life of 234U, De Bievre et al. (1971) determined a value of 244,600 +/- 730 years and Lounsbury and Durham (1971) determined a value of 244,400 +/- 1200 years. Because these values are almost identical, a commonly used value in geochronology is the mean of the two: 244,500 years. However, Holden (1989) has reviewed all 234U half-life work and gave a weighted average half-life of 245,500 +/- 1000 years using revised data including data from De Bievre et al. (1971) and Lounsbury and Durham (1971). This value differs by 4‰ from the commonly used value. The fractional error in the value for the 230Th half-life is the largest of the three; the most recent and most precise value is 75,381 +/- 590 years (Meadows et al., 1980). The uncertainties in the half-lives affect the accuracy of 230Th ages, particularly for samples older than about 350 ka, in cases where standardization is based solely on gravimetric standards. Thus, by reducing errors in the half-life values we can improve the accuracy of 230Th ages.

You will note that each of these half-lives are reported from labs independent of the other half-lives. You are free to read those references rather than take my word for it ... but it is your job to do so if you question their results.

quote:
If a system remains closed to chemical exchange for an interval of time long compared to the half-lives of the intermediate daughters in the 238U decay series, it reaches a state of secular equilibrium (Bateman, 1910). In this state, the activities of all of the nuclides in the decay series are equal: 238U(λ238) = 234U(λ234)= 230Th(λ230), or λ234 = λ238/(234U/238U) and λ230 = V238/(230Th/238U). The λ’s are decay constants, the chemical symbols refer to numbers of atoms of the indicated nuclide and the subscripts indicate the mass number of the nuclides. As the value of λ238 is well-known, one can determine λ230 and λ234 by measuring 234U/238U and 230Th/238U in secular equilibrium materials.

The value of λ238 is well known (see above for reference to its derivation), the quantities of 238U, 234U and 230Th are measured by highly accurate and precise (TIMS) methods and the calculation of λ234 and λ230 are simple math.

quote:
With thermal ionization mass spectrometric (TIMS) techniques, one can measure 234U/238U and 230Th/238U with better precision (Edwards et al., 1987) than the errors for the current values for λ230 and λ234. Thus, in principle the values for the half-lives of 230Th and 234U can be refined by simply measuring 234U/238U and 230Th/238U in secular equilibrium materials.

In other words this is a different approach to measuring λ230 and λ234 from the previous lab determinations (again, see above for references for their derivation), and it operates as an independent check on those half-life determinations.

The precision and accuracy depend on:

  • the precision and accuracy of λ238
  • the precision and accuracy of measuring 238U quantity in the sample
  • the precision and accuracy of measuring 234U quantity in the sample
  • the precision and accuracy of measuring 230Th quantity in the sample

quote:
Using this approach, Ludwig et al. (1992) report a value for the 234U decay constant that is similar to the Holden (1989) value.

ie this has already been done for 234U and the result agrees with the previous value (and again you can see above for references).

Not surprisingly the new values agree with the old lab determined values within the margin of error: the results are refinements of previous determinations rather than significantly different.

quote:
From a practical standpoint, the main impact of this work relates to the dating of materials older than 350 ka in laboratories that rely solely on gravimetric standardization procedures. In this case, use of our decay constants and their associated errors will reduce errors in age due to errors in decay constants considerably. For any laboratories with systematic errors similar to ours, use of our decay constant values will reduce age error due to decay constant error to insignificant levels.

The margin of error for dating material under 50 ka (50,000 years) is negligible (the length of time under consideration in the coral study).

Message 29: 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.

It seems that they did even better than that.

quote:
... Each sample was run until at least 4 million 234U ions had been counted (+/- 1‰ (2σ ) counting statistics). ...

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 34 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2013 1:43 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by mindspawn, posted 11-25-2013 6:38 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 38 of 119 (711571)
11-20-2013 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by mindspawn
11-20-2013 2:27 AM


Re: Dry Lakes and Rabbit Holes and Rational Conclusions and Cognitive Dissonance
Are you saying that anyone who disagrees with well-established theories is in your eyes arrogant. Their views are BS? ...

No, just views based on made up conjectures that are contradicted by objective empirical evidence ... such as your mysterious precipitation claim.

... If this was true then science would never progress. To challenge the establishment and keep re-testing theories is part of what strengthens a theory and should be welcomed by the scientific community. ...

It is ... when done scientifically and based on objective empirical evidence. We just covered an example of that with the uranium thorium dating study that refined the decay values.

... Maybe we would reach understanding through discussion if both parties can present their evidence in an unemotional scientific manner. ...

Any time you want to start presenting objective empirical evidence in a scientific manner to actually support your position I will be happy to look at it.

... My prediction is that your replies will get less succint, more swearing, and less attempts to actually answer my questions.

You don't know me so don't pretend you can predict behavior. On the other hand, cognitive dissonance theory predicts the behavior of people confronted with objective empirical evidence that contradicts strongly beliefs in the way they will try to reduce the dissonance. This includes ignoring or denying information that shows your beliefs to be invalid and trying to shift the debate away from the contradictory information.

This whole thread is due to your denial of the evidence for an old earth, and your attempts to discredit each piece of information and bring up irrelevant information are part and parcel of your attempts to reduce your personal dissonance.

The problem for you though, is that simply challenging each piece of information (by grasping at irrelevant material, misunderstanding information, making up wild conjectures, etc) is not enoug to show that the information is wrong ...

... you also have to explain how entirely different systems reach precisely and accurate agreement: why do the dendrochronologies match the uranium-thorium coral data?

If we look at the data from 0 (1950) to 10,000 BP (before 1950) for tree rings (three chronologies) and the uranitum-thorium dating of corals there is significant correlation between them in regards to measuring the 14C/12C ratios and calculating the theoretical 14C age of those samples.

Surely you are not going to tell me that corals are "precipitation sensitive" systems ...

I agree that Irish Oak and German Oak and many bristlecone pine trees currently show annual rings. I stated this in my post 27. This explains the consilient records. I specifically asked you in post 27 to present your evidence that the ancient white mountain Bristlecone Pines show the 1816 "year without a summer". I'm waiting for your proof of this.

I explained that after the cooler spring snow melt , bristlecone pines experience dry spells and then still experience significant summer rains. I gave you a link in post 27 that shows evidence for this within the last 12 months. So there has to be more than one ring due to the dry spells interrupting growth, and then the ideal summer rainfalls re-stimulating growth until winter stops growth again.

I asked you to present your evidence on how the older dead bristlecone pines did not rot so that rings can be analyzed thousands of years later.

In post 27 I also posted evidence of Europe undergoing dryer spells during the Holocene which would affect German/Irish chronologies.

This is you continuing to nit-pick information when the broad picture shows your mysterious precipitation conjecture to not only be irrelevant but incorrect.

... I gave you a link in post 27 that shows evidence for this within the last 12 months. ...

No, you gave me a link to the wet side of the mountain range that would be predicted to have significant rainfall, but which would not affect the weather on the "rain shadow" side where the Bristlecone Pines used in the dendrochronology grow.

... In post 27 I also posted evidence of Europe undergoing dryer spells during the Holocene which would affect German/Irish chronologies ...

And I showed you a link where the German oak/pine chronology reported the climate from that period. Again you must think the scientists doing these studies must be idiots if you keep thinking that you have discovered something new that they all missed.

Affect the climate - yes and agreed with by scientists - match your mysterious majic rainfall pattern - no you have not demonstrated that in the slightest. That is the difference between science and conjecture.

Curiously, I came across another correlation and calibration point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/...weather_events_of_535%E2%80%93536

quote:
The extreme weather events of 535–536 were the most severe and protracted short-term episodes of cooling in the Northern Hemisphere in the last 2,000 years.[1] The event is thought to have been caused by an extensive atmospheric dust veil, possibly resulting from a large volcanic eruption in the tropics,[2] or debris from space impacting the Earth.[3] Its effects were widespread, causing unseasonal weather, crop failures, and famines worldwide.[3]

Documentary evidence

The Byzantine historian Procopius recorded of 536, in his report on the wars with the Vandals, "during this year a most dread portent took place. For the sun gave forth its light without brightness...and it seemed exceedingly like the sun in eclipse, for the beams it shed were not clear."[4][5]

The Gaelic Irish Annals[6][7][8] record the following:

  • "A failure of bread in the year 536 AD" - the Annals of Ulster
  • "A failure of bread from the years 536–539 AD" - the Annals of Inisfallen

Scientific evidence

Tree ring analysis by dendrochronologist Mike Baillie, of the Queen's University of Belfast, shows abnormally little growth in Irish oak in 536 and another sharp drop in 542, after a partial recovery.[12] Similar patterns are recorded in tree rings from Sweden and Finland, in California's Sierra Nevada and in rings from Chilean Fitzroya trees.[citation needed] Ice cores from Greenland and Antarctica show evidence of substantial sulfate deposits around 533–534 ± 2 years, evidence of an extensive acidic dust veil.[2]


Looks like volcanic (or meteor) evidence in the sulfate deposits in the ice cores at 533-534 AD ± 2, evidence of abnormal little growth in 536 AD and 542 AD in Irish oak and Sierra Nevada (Bristlecone Pine or Ponderosa Pine which is cross-dated with the Bristlecone Pine) rings.

If we assume a date of 536 AD for this event -- from the documented history, then the ice core date is within the margin of error (534 +/-2) and the oak data is 100% accurate (536 AD) and is matched by the Bristlecone Pine data.

Dendrochronology precision and accuracy for the three chronologies is 100% at 1816 AD, 100% at 536 AD and 99.5% at 8,000 years BP (before 1950 AD).

The extremely strong consilience of these systems with each other (very high correlation of accuracy and precision) AND the highly strong consilience of these systems with the uranium-thorium dating of the corals (precise and accurate) shows that these dates are highly accurate and precise.

We can also include Cariaco Basin in this consilience with the dendrochronology:

Cariaco Basin calibration update; revisions to calendar and 14C chronologies for core PL07-58PC.

Full PDF Download

quote:

You need to explain the precise and accurate correlation of these two data sets from two independent sources of data with an actual mechanism that would cause this precise and accurate match if you continue to contend that it is not due to measuring the same thing: the age of the samples in the objective empirical evidence.

Note the high degree of correlation and consilience between:

  1. Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology
  2. Irish oak dendrochronology
  3. German oak and pine dendrochronology
  4. the uranium-thorium coral chronology
  5. Cariaco Basin varve chronology

You need to explain why these 5 seperate and distinct systems have exactly the same patterns of 14C vs age. Nothing you have presented so far even comes close.

Further, I do not need to provide you with any more information on this as you have not shown one single piece of evidence that these are in error, what the source of the error is and documented evidence of this mysterious source actually affecting each of these systems in precisely and accurately the same way at the same time.

Do you understand that so far you have totally failed to present real objective empirical evidence that in any way contests these dates? Multiple dry spells in the Holocene (modern era) are not evidence that partial year ring growth patterns formed, just evidence that there would be years with smaller growth rings than normal -- evidence that was in fact FOUND in the data

RAZD: here is a mountain of evidence that 14C dating is precise and shows an old earth, at least 50,000 years old.
Mindspawn: doesn't this piece of dust on another mountain show that a piece of dust on your mountain may be off?
RAZD: you haven't (a) shown how it could or (b) provided evidence that it could. This evidence shows that there was no such effect.
Mindspawn: but doesn't this piece of dust on another mountain show that a piece of dust on your mountain may be off?
RAZD: here is more evidence of correlation and consilience in the data.
Mindspawn: but but doesn't this piece of dust on another mountain show that a piece of dust on your mountain may be off?
RAZD: No, I've shown you the evidence, read it.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : clarity


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 35 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2013 2:27 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 39 of 119 (711577)
11-20-2013 2:03 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by mindspawn
11-20-2013 5:45 AM


Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration
Most of this post just rehashes refuted arguments and fails to deal honestly with the data.

Correlations and consilience are NOT explained by making stuff up

The consilience is due to scientists cherry picking locations according to a loose match with current carbon dating assumptions. The result is that they choose locations with approximately 10-12 major precipitation events a year, due to the fact that the carbon dates are incorrect by a factor of about 10-12 times.

What is your evidence for this? Saying it does not make it so: you need objective empirical evidence. You have presented ZERO evidence that factually and accurately shows this to be the case. Without evidence that demonstrates your conjecture it is just fantasy.

I note that you are now claiming that the dates are due to some vast conspiracy among all the scientists involved with 14C calibration ...

... one of the mechanisms for reducing dissonance predicted by cognitive dissonance theory.

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 36 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2013 5:45 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2013 10:34 PM RAZD has responded
 Message 47 by mindspawn, posted 11-26-2013 3:16 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 40 of 119 (711636)
11-20-2013 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
11-20-2013 2:03 PM


Summary of my debate arguments so far
Pursuant to suggestions from the PG I am going to summarize my posts to date (to eliminate duplication of points made) and then follow that up with posts specific to each particular point. It's not that I have the time for it, rather it is time to do this on this thread to prevent further scatter of issue (rabbit holes etc). This isn't necessarily intended for a reply, but as a reference of the arguments.

Feel free to do the same ... in fact I encourage it and would prefer it rather than having you reply to this message.

My posts on this thread start with - Message 20.

  1. Mindspawns original"main problem"
    1. "with carbon dating is its calibration against tree ring chronology"
    2. mindspawns original "main problem" with 14C dating has been answered - Message 28
    3. the "main problem" has been answered by showing that tree ring calendar age measurement is 100% accurate and precise for 1816AD the "year without a summer" and slightly over 99.5% accurate and precise for a bit over 8,000 years of record - Message 28 - and another correlation and calibration point for dendrochronology calendar is 536AD with 100% accuracy in the Irish oak chronology matched in other chronologies - Message 38
    4. the "main problem" has been answered by showing that the oak dendrochronologies are not water limited, 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 highly consilient records. - Message 28
    5. the answer from mindspawn when coyote said that the "main problem" was answered by a graph showing several other correlations was to question each one and make up a fantasy about precipitation sensitivity affecting them simultaneously - Message 28
    6. this means that the goal posts have been moved rather than recognizing that the "main problem" has been answered. - Message 28

  2. Definitions

  3. Dendrochronology

    1. Dendrochronology basics
      1. challenge the dendrochronologies with some modicum of understanding of the work that has gone into them, not with uneducated fantasy. - Message 28
        1. tree ring correlation source (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). here with the Full PDF Download Here - Message 28
        2. tree ring correlation source (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. here with the Full PDF Download Here - Message 28

      2. It should come as no surprise that the thousands of dendrochronologist are actually able to discern the difference between rainfall patterns and annual patterns in the formation of rings. - Message 31
      3. this section can be expanded to cover false and missing ring determination, etc.

    2. Irish oak
      1. precipitation in Ireland shows Irish oak dendrochronology is not water limited and would not have rings formed in response to individual storms. - Message 21
      2. the Irish Oak chronology is not in a precipitation sensitive environment, they are indeed annual rings, Message 31
      3. oaks are often found in marshes and peat bogs where the acidic water preserves them. - Message 31
      4. another correlation and calibration point for dendrochronology is 536 - Message 38
      5. the accurate date of 536 AD for this event is from the documented history, - Message 38
      6. then the ice core date is within the margin of error (534 +/-2) - Message 38
      7. and the oak data is 100% accurate (536 AD) - Message 38

    3. German oak and pine
      1. precipitation in Germany shows German oak and pine dendrochronology is not water limited and would not have rings formed in response to individual storms. - Message 21
      2. the German Oak and Pine chronologies are not in precipitation sensitive environments, they are indeed annual rings, agreement. - Message 31
      3. oaks are often found in marshes and peat bogs where the acidic water preserves them. - Message 31
      4. they identify the Holocene (modern) climate variations from the tree ring data - Message 31
      5. I provided a link where the German oak/pine chronology reported the climate from the Holocene - Message 38

    4. Bristlecone Pine
      1. precipitation on the dry side of the Sierra Nevada mountains where the samples for the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology are taken shows that most of it falls during the winter as snow (7.2"), and thus there would be robust formation of new cells in the spring and later spring and summer growth would be minor in comparison. The short growing season means that there would not be time for false rings to form from any rainfall events, certainly not from 11 to 12 events (0.4" per event). Thus we have annual rings. - Message 21
      2. the Bristlecone pine chronology is more likely to be missing some annual rings than to have rainfall rings. - Message 28
      3. Bristlecone Pines ecology has low year round temperatures and a short growing season -- there is no warm summer rain, there are no growth spurts, and there certainly are not 11 to 12 major storms a year. - Message 31
      4. " ... Annual precipitation is less than 12 inches (30cm), most of which arrives as snow in winter. ... " - Message 31
      5. If we take 60% (low) of the 12" as snow that is 7.2" of water available from spring snow melt. - Message 31
      6. The other 40% divided by your mysterious 11 to 12 event scenario is 4.8/12 or 0.4" of rain per event and this is totally insufficient to provide robust growth spurt anywhere near the 7.2" (or more) from snow melting. - Message 31
      7. In addition the growing season is so short that your 11 to 12 storms would be occurring in rapid sequence, with no opportunity for the cells to die off sufficiently to form a pseudo-winter band. - Message 31
      8. Bristlecone Pine rings are annual rings, and denial of this documented fact is delusion. - Message 31
      9. there are dead trees still standing older than any of the living trees (one is 7,000 years old). - Message 31
      10. The environment preserves fallen trees. - Message 31
      11. the record for oldest living tree is now 5063 years old this year. - Message 31
      12. The more time passes the more evidence there is of old growth and an older earth. - Message 31
      13. bristlecone pines found in warmer wetter areas can be (and are) included in the cross-dating check for the dendrochronology. - Message 31
      14. the 536 date is matched by the Bristlecone Pine data. - Message 38

    5. Tree ring accuracy and precision
      1. correlation between the Irish oak dendrochronology, the German oak and pine dendrochronology and the Bristlecone pine dendrochronology agree for age and climate markers with over 99.5% accuracy and precision for over 8,000 years of recorded growth. - Message 21
      2. 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, an error of less than 0.5% - Message 28
      3. the Irish Oak and the German Oak and Pine chronologies are not in precipitation sensitive environments, they are indeed annual rings, and they agree with the Bristlecone Pine chronology for over 8,000 years with 99.5% agreement. - Message 31
      4. Dry spells of less than a month duration are technically not dry spells but ordinary weather. - Message 31
      5. All that is needed is that the water replenish the water-table where the trees grow. - Message 31
      6. In the case of the Irish and German dendrochronologies this is not an issue due to the amount of normal rainfall. - Message 31
      7. again we see that these two dendrochronologies refute your argument: they are annual rings and they agree with the Bristlecone Pine chronology with 99.5% accuracy. - Message 31
      8. Droughts affect the climate - yes, found in the tree rings, and agreed with by climate scientists - Message 38
      9. Dendrochronology precision and accuracy for the three chronologies is 100% at 1816 AD, 100% at 536 AD and 99.5% at 8,000 years BP (before 1950 AD). - Message 38
      10. This very strong consilience between dendrochronologies demonstrates that the Bristlecone Pine is an annual ring chronology - Message 31

  4. Lake & Marine Varves
    1. Basics
      1. material can be added here

    2. Lake Suigetsu
      1. Lake Suigetsu has distinct annual layers formed by alternate diatom and clay layers - Message 23
      2. cores of the lake bottom were taken in the middle of the lake where they would not be disturbed by inflow patterns - Message 23
      3. the clay takes a long time to settle to the bottom of the lake - Message 23
      4. this means the variation in deposition from irregular stream input is vastly attenuated and averaged out - Message 23
      5. only during winter months is there sufficient time to form a discernable clay layer - Message 23
      6. diatom on the other hand settle within a day or two at most - Message 23
      7. the diatom deposition obscures any clay deposited at the same time - Message 23
      8. multiple blooms and deaths of diatoms would still create one diatom layer per year - Message 23
      9. the clay deposition rate is 1.2 mm/year for the Holocene (modern) period, confirming that the clay deposition is a slow process - Message 23
      10. the clay deposition rate is 0.61 mm/yr for the period before ~15,000 years BP (before 1950) - Message 23
      11. this confirms that Lake Suigetsu varves do not have sensitivity to rainfall patterns - Message 23
      12. there are 24.74 spring tides per year (one at new moon and one at full moon) not 11 or 12 - Message 23
      13. there are a number of volcanic eruptions documented in the Lake Suigetsu cores - Message 23
      14. two of those volcanic eruptions are dated in other locations with similar results - Message 23
      15. climate data for the Dunde Ice Cap matches Lake Suigetsu climate information. - Message 24
      16. I have shown that Suigetsu Lake varves are not sensitive to rainfall\runoff patterns, but are annual layers. - Message 31

    3. Lake Lisan
      1. the proper reference for Lake Lisan is #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. - Message 28
      2. material from proper reference can be added here

    4. Cariaco Basin
      1. the proper reference for Cariaco Basin is #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. - Message 28
      2. material from proper reference can be added here

    5. Varve Accuracy and Precision
      1. 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. - Message 23
      2. We can also include Cariaco Basin in this consilience with the dendrochronology: Cariaco Basin calibration update; revisions to calendar and 14C chronologies for core PL07-58PC. - Message 38
      3. one needs to explain the precise and accurate correlation of these two data sets from two independent sources of data (German pine and Cariaco varves) with an actual mechanism that would cause this precise and accurate match (see graph) if one continues to contend that it is not due to measuring the actual age of the samples - Message 38
      4. material can be added here

  5. Ice Cores
    1. Basics
      1. pollen and seeds mixed in with the dust, which would only occur during the growing season, make annual layers that are easy to identify because of the dust band. - Message 24
      2. 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. - Message 24

    2. Quelccaya ice cap
      1. The Quelccaya ice cap data shows climate that is consilient with the archeological record for Peru. - Message 24
      2. the Quelccaya layers 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, showing the accuracy and precision of these measurements. - Message 24

    3. Dunde Ice Cap
      1. the Dunde Ice Cap has 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, - Message 24
      2. pollen data from the Dunde Ice Cap confirm climate changes - Message 24
      3. pollen data from the Dunde Ice Cap confirm the Little Ice Age dates - Message 24
      4. pollen data from the Dunde Ice Cap confirm the end of the last Ice Age - Message 24

    4. Greenland
      1. there are several Greenland ice cores - Message 24
      2. 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. - Message 24
      3. 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). - Message 24
      4. 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. - Message 24
      5. Back to 12,000 BP, the GISP2 layer counting was validated by a very close agreement of three independent methods of counting the annual layers - Message 24
      6. From 12,000 BP back to 40,000 BP, the GISP2 layer counting was validated by a very close agreement of two independent methods of counting the annual layers - Message 24
      7. from 40,000 BP back to 110,000 BP GISP2 layer counting was validated by a close agreement of two independent methods - Message 24
      8. the top 12,000 GISP2 layers are annual 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 coarse grained than winter snow. - Message 24
      9. we can distinguish the ice core annual layers by the dust concentrations. - Message 24
      10. we can distinguished summer snow from winter snow by the electrical conductivity of the layers: 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. - Message 24

    5. Ice Core Accuracy and Precision
      1. despite the different methods used for dating GRIP and GISP2, there is "excellent agreement" between these cores. - Message 24
      2. the consilience of the three main methods of counting the annual layers in the GISP2 core ensures the validity of the ice core dating. - Message 24
      3. The three methods have excellent correlation with each other down to 2500 m, that is, back to c. 57,000 BP (before 1950) - Message 24
      4. different methods are correlated to show the degree of consilience of data. - Message 25
      5. material can be added here

  6. Radiometric Measurements and Dating
    1. Carbon-14
      1. the measurement of the amount of 14C to 12C in a sample is precise and accurate to better than 99% - Message 22
      2. the calculation of theoretical 14C age is based on a simple exponential formula that will always return the same result for the same input, thus the raw 14C age is as precise and accurate as the measurements - Message 22
      3. λ14C is 5730 years +/- 40 - Message 22
      4. the raw 14C age formula is: t = {ln(Nf/No)/ln(1/2)} x t1/2
        = {ln(Nf/No)/ln(1/2)} x t1/2
        = -8267 x ln(Nf/No)
      5. 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.

    2. Uranium-Thorium dating
      1. uranium-thorium dating is precise and accurate, it is based on laboratory precise and accurate derivations for λ238U, λ234U, λ230Th and on the precise and accurate measurements of 238U, 234U and 230Th via simple mathematics that will always return the same age for the same data inputs. - Message 22
      2. the accuracy and precision of the quantity measurements by TIMMS is better than 99% - Message 22
      3. the reference list from the paper with that graph is presented for reference - Message 28
      4. the references for the graph are (in order on the graph) #87, #66, #8, #61, #111, #90 and #116 - Message 28
      5. the seven papers related to the graph should read, quoted from, and criticized in relation to the graph, not other papers ... as a start ... - Message 28
      6. uranium-thorium information on half-life determination is in the paper. - Message 33
      7. Here is the reference again (it is #17 in Message 28): 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. - Message 33
      8. the new half-lives agree within the margin of error with previously determined values and that the margins of error are reduced in the new determinations. - Message 33
      9. The 234U half-life is about 3‰ longer than previous values - Message 33
      10. the 230Th half-life is about 4‰ longer, - Message 33
      11. they confirm previous lab measurements with a difference of only 0.3% (older) for 234U and 0.4% (older) for 230Th - Message 33
      12. The accuracy is 99.8% for 234U. - Message 33
      13. The accuracy is 99.7% for 230Th. - Message 33
      14. They measured the age of the coral by uranium/thorium dating AND by uranium-uranium - Message 33
      15. that they got the same results means there is a highly consilient accurate and precise calendar age calculation for the coral samples. - Message 33
      16. half-life measurements were made in the lab - Message 37
      17. the references are available to check that the information presented in the article were proper and accurate representations of the science. - Message 37
      18. each of these half-lives are reported from labs independent of the other half-lives. - Message 37
      19. anyone can read the references for the article - Message 37
      20. The value of λ238 is well known - Message 37
      21. the quantities of 238U, 234U and 230Th are measured by highly accurate and precise (TIMS) methods (over 99% accuracy) - Message 37
      22. the calculation of λ234 and λ230 are simple math. - Message 37
      23. once a sample reaches a state of secular equilibrium the activities of all of the nuclides in the decay series are equal - Message 37
      24. 238U(λ238) = 234U(λ234)= 230Th(λ230), or - Message 37
        1. λ234 = λ238/(234U/238U) and - Message 37
        2. λ230 = V238/(230Th/238U). - Message 37

      25. The value of λ238 is well known - Message 37
      26. the quantities of 238U, 234U and 230Th are measured by highly accurate and precise (TIMS) methods - Message 37
      27. the calculation of λ234 and λ230 are simple math. - Message 37
      28. this is a different approach to measuring λ230 and λ234 from the previous lab determination - Message 37
      29. it operates as an independent check on those half-life determinations. - Message 37
      30. the precision and accuracy depend on the precision and accuracy of λ238, the precision and accuracy of measuring 238U quantity in the sample, the precision and accuracy of measuring 234U quantity in the sample and the precision and accuracy of measuring 230Th quantity in the sample - Message 37
      31. this has already been done for 234U and the result agrees with the previous value - Message 37
      32. the new values agree with the old lab determined values within the margin of error: - Message 37
      33. the results are refinements of previous determinations rather than significantly different. - Message 37
      34. the new results have smaller margins of error. - Message 37
      35. The margin of error for dating material under 50 ka (50,000 years) is negligible (the length of time under consideration in the coral study). - Message 37
      36. λ238U is 4.4683 +/- 0.0048 = 10^9 years (2σ ) - Message 37
      37. λ234U is 245,250 +/- 490 years (2σ ) - Message 33
      38. λ230Th is 75,690 +/- 230 years (2σ ) - Message 33

    3. Radiometric Accuracy and Precision
      1. the three dendrochronologies have over 99.5% precise and accurate determinations for calendar age from the tree rings and 99% accurate determination of raw 14C age and this should correlate with the uranium-thorium calendar ages and 14C ages - Message 22
      2. the correlation between dendrochronology and uranium-thorium data shows a very strong, precise and accurate consilience between the two independent systems, validating the correlation of 14C with calendar age (as shown in graphs). - Message 22
      3. from two different graphs, from two different systems -- one for uranium-thorium data and one for Lake Suigetsu data (that also shows some different coral data not reviewed yet on this thread) -- we see a high degree of agreement - consilience - in the results. - Message 23
      4. consilience of Lake Suigetsu data with the uranium-thorium coral data -- completely independent systems -- provides very high confidence in these results. - Message 23
      5. consilience between the coral data and the highly precise and accurate dendrochronology provides very high confidence in these results. - Message 23
      6. material can be added here
      7. we can calibrate 14C to improve the accuracy of results - Message 25
      8. the calibration generally makes the corrected dates younger - Message 25
      9. independent uranium-uranium and uranium-thorium date information that is then compared to the 14C data from the same core sample to show the correlation between them (see graph) - Message 33
      10. This precise correlation with highly accurate data allows calibration of the 14C dates to increase the accuracy of those dates. - Message 33

  7. Overall Correlations, Consilience and Calibration

    1. the consilience between different systems shows that the correlation of 14C to calendar age is valid and 99% precise, but ~90% accurate - Message 25
    2. coyote showed midspawn the graph of 14C correlations with several sets of data so that he could see the consilience of data - Message 28
    3. why do the dendrochronologies match the uranium-thorium coral data? - Message 38
    4. The extremely strong consilience of these systems with each other (very high correlation of accuracy and precision) AND the highly strong consilience of these systems with the uranium-thorium dating of the corals (precise and accurate) shows that these dates are highly accurate and precise. - Message 38
    5. one needs to explain why these 5 separate and distinct systems have exactly the same patterns of 14C vs calendar age: Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology, Irish oak dendrochronology, German oak and pine dendrochronology, the uranium-thorium coral chronology, and the Cariaco Basin varve chronology. - Message 38

  8. Misinformation, misdirection and evasion, cognitive dissonance behavior
    1. paper referenced by mindspawn on Lake Lisan has absolutely nothing about 14C dating, calibration of 14C, tree ring counting or lake varve counting. - Message 25
    2. the 11 to 12 year conjecture by mindspawn is not supported by any objective empirical data, is a made up number, and it is invalidated by actual objective empirical evidence - Message 25
    3. even major weather events are not the same around the world - Message 31
    4. please present data of these 11 to 12 major patterns: I'm sure that meteorologists will be mighty interested in this made up factoid. - Message 31
    5. the 11 to 12 major pattern claim is falsified by the differences observed in the climate between Ireland, Germany and the White Mountain peaks, - Message 31
    6. two references for weather presented by mindspawn are both to the wet side of the White Mountains, they are at significantly lower elevations, and in the area where the mountain range strips the air of moisture and not representative of the weather where the trees are growing. - Message 31
    7. Lake Lisan was referenced on the graph in question, but the study presented by mindspawn had nothing to do with 14C measurements or correlations - Message 28
    8. the paper presented by mindspawn was not the paper cited for the graph data - Message 28
    9. pretendings that it is the paper in question makes it a red herring (rabbit hole) - Message 28
    10. the correlations and consilience of data are still not explained by mindspawn - Message 31
    11. cognitive dissonance theory predicts the behavior of people confronted with objective empirical evidence that contradicts strongly beliefs in the way they will try to reduce the dissonance. - Message 38
    12. This includes ignoring or denying information that shows their beliefs to be invalid and trying to shift the debate away from the contradictory information. - Message 38
    13. This whole thread is due to mindspawn's denial of the evidence for an old earth, and his attempts to discredit each piece of information and bring up irrelevant information are part and parcel of his attempts to reduce his personal dissonance. - Message 38
    14. simply challenging each piece of information is not enough to show that the information is wrong - Message 38
    15. one also has to explain how entirely different systems reach precisely and accurate agreement: - Message 38
    16. the broad picture shows mindspawn's mysterious precipitation conjecture to not only be irrelevant but incorrect. - Message 38
    17. a link to the wet side of the mountain range would be predicted to have significant rainfall, but which would not affect the weather on the "rain shadow" side where the Bristlecone Pines used in the dendrochronology grow. - Message 38
    18. match the mysterious mindspawn magic rainfall pattern - not demonstrated in the slightest. - Message 38
    19. Multiple dry spells in the Holocene (modern era) are not evidence that partial year ring growth patterns formed, just evidence that there would be years with smaller growth rings than normal -- evidence that was in fact FOUND in the data. - Message 38
    20. Correlations and consilience are NOT explained by making stuff up - Message 39
    21. where is the evidence for the mysterious mindspawn magic 11 to 12 factor? - Message 39
    22. Saying it does not make it so: one needs objective empirical evidence. - Message 39
    23. Without evidence that demonstrates a conjecture is valid it is just fantasy. - Message 39
    24. claiming that the dates are due to some vast conspiracy among all the scientists involved with 14C calibration is another of the mechanisms for reducing dissonance predicted by cognitive dissonance theory. - Message 39

  9. Age of the earth
    1. objective empirical evidence shows consistently, consiliently, that the earth is old, very very old ... - Message 25
    2. The earth is old, very very old: get used to it. - Message 33
    3. this section can be expanded

Second revision done. I will likely edit this list again to combine some of the repeated arguments and to organize each category better ...

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : rev 1

Edited by RAZD, : rev2


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 39 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2013 2:03 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2013 3:28 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 41 of 119 (711729)
11-21-2013 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by RAZD
11-20-2013 10:34 PM


Dendrochronology Basics

Dendrochronology Basics

Dendrochronology is the study of time and climate through the evidence of tree-rings and related data. There are several thousand dendrochronologies currently being used and expanded in the world, some of these are "floating" chronologies (where the end dates are not know) and some are absolute. More data is being reviewed every year, and the chronologies are being extended, cross-referenced and check by other measures.

We can start with the three (3) oldest trees in the world -- all Bristlecone Pines from the White Mountains of the Sierra Nevada:

  • the "Methuselah" tree, with an estimated germination date of 2832 BCE (wiki)(1)
  • the "Prometheus" tree (aka WPN-114), with a measured age of 4862 when cut down in 1964 for research, however this is a minimum age due to the core of the tree is missing, giving it a minimum germination date of 2898 BCE (but likely older). (wiki)(2)
  • the "Schulman" tree (my name for the tree because Schulman took the core and he was a pioneer in dendrochronology in the area), with an estimated germination date of 3051 BCE (wiki)(3)
  • the "Ancient Sentinels" - standing dead trees, as old as 7,000 years, no information on their germination dates at this point (article)(4)


"Ancient Sentinels"(5)

You might think that measuring the age of trees is a simple matter of just counting the rings. In practice it is a bit more complicated.

Dendrochronology website by Leonard Miller(6)

quote:
Simply put, dendrochronology is the dating of past events (climatic changes) through study of tree ring growth. Botanists, foresters and archaeologists began using this technique during the early part of the 20th century. Discovered by A.E. Douglass from the University of Arizona, who noted that the wide rings of certain species of trees were produced during wet years and, inversely, narrow rings during dry seasons.

Each year a tree adds a layer of wood to its trunk and branches thus creating the annual rings we see when viewing a cross section. New wood grows from the cambium layer between the old wood and the bark. In the spring, when moisture is plentiful, the tree devotes its energy to producing new growth cells. These first new cells are large, but as the summer progresses their size decreases until, in the fall, growth stops and cells die, with no new growth appearing until the next spring. The contrast between these smaller old cells and next year's larger new cells is enough to establish a ring, thus making counting possible.

Lets say the sample was taken from a standing 4,000 year-old (but long dead) bristlecone. Its outer growth rings were compared with the inner rings of a living tree. If a pattern of individual ring widths in the two samples prove to be identical at some point, we can carry dating further into the past. With this method of matching overlapping patterns found in different wood samples, bristlecone chronologies have been established almost 9,000 years into the past.

A number of tree samples must be examined and cross dated from any given site to avoid the possibility of all the collected data showing a missing or extra ring. Further checking is done until no inconsistency appears. Often several sample cores are taken from each tree examined. These must be compared not only with samples from other trees at the same location but also with those at other sites in the region. Additionally, the average of all data provides the best estimate of climate averages. A large portion of the effects of non-climatic factors that occur in the various site data is minimized by this averaging scheme.


Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating at the Millennium - PDF(7)

quote:

The fundamental principle of dendrochronology is crossdating (Fig. 1), which is classically defined as “the procedure of matching ring width variations . . . among trees that have grown in nearby areas, allowing the identification of the exact year in which each ring formed” (Fritts, 1976, p. 534). Fritts and Swetnam (1989, p. 121) added that crossdating is a procedure that “utilizes the presence and absence of [ring] synchrony from different cores and trees to identify the growth rings that may be misinterpreted” (Fritts and Swetnam, 1989, p. 121). It is well known that many tree species add one growth ring per year. The problem for dendrochronologists is that in particularly stressful years many tree species will either fail to produce a ring, which leads to a “missing ring,” or produce an incomplete, or “locally absent ring,” “lens,” or “moon ring” (Krapiec, 1999; see Fig. 2).

To complicate matters further, certain tree species may produce a “double” or “false” ring; when the earlywood cells (i.e., those in the ring that are larger, thin walled, and therefore lighter) are being produced during a growing season, and particularly stressful climatic conditions return and lead to a general decrease in the rate of tree growth, a band of latewood cells (i.e., those that are smaller, thicker walled, and therefore darker) will be produced. If and when favorable conditions return during that growing season, earlywood cell production will begin anew, and the normal band of latewood cells will be created at the end of the growing season (Jacoby, 2000a). The key to distinguishing between double or false rings and annual rings lies in the nature of the transition between the latewood and earlywood cells: in a false or double ring the transition is gradual due to the phasing in and out of favorable growing conditions (Fig. 3).

In an annual tree ring, the transition from one ring’s latewood to the next ring’s earlywood is abrupt because ring production actually stopped for some period of time, typically during winter.

The parameters used in crossdating differ depending on geographic and climatological variables and their effects on tree growth, as well as the research questions of interest. Most commonly, crossdating is performed on ring-width variation, but successful crossdating has been accomplished using variations in ring density,

... Crossdating is possible because trees growing in the same (variously defined) regions and under the right conditions record the same climate signal in their rings. Although their growth patterns may differ in absolute size, the relative size of rings in trees from the same stand or region will often be the same, because the climate signal affects them all the same way. Other factors (e.g. competition, insect infestation, accidents, etc.) may have an effect as well.

... Once a number of skeleton-plotted series are compared, all missing and double rings are identified, and the series have been correctly crossdated, a summary master chronology is developed and used to visually crossdate new specimens (Douglass, 1941). ...

... ring-width variations are usually measured with great precision, and sophisticated statistical techniques and computer programs are then used to crossdate the ring-width measurements (Holmes, 1983; see Baillie, 1995). ...

Replication in dendrochronology occurs at three empirical and analytical levels. It occurs when independent tree-ring samples from the same geographic area yield the same ring-width pattern because they record the same climate signal, it occurs when independent tree-ring chronologies can be crossdated (for the same reason), and it occurs when dendrochronologists arrive at the same results, independently, because of the efficacy of the crossdating technique. A classic example of replication at all levels occurred when LaMarche and Harlan (1973), of the University of Arizona, independently crossdated a bristlecone pine chronology from the White Mountains of California, which was then used to calibrate the radiocarbon time scale. ...


NOAA Dendrochronology Slide Website(8)

Pay particular attention to slide 6 on false rings and how they are distinguished from true annual rings, slide 7 on partial or locally absent rings, slide 8 on sampling techniques, slide 16 on bristlecone pine, and slide 17 on correlation of rings to days of precipitation.

quote:
(Slide 6)Under certain climatic conditions, some species will form intra-annual or false rings . If climatic conditions are unfavorable to growth during the growing season, the tree may mistakenly sense that the end of the season is near, and produce dark, thick-walled latewood cells. Improved conditions will cause the tree to produce lighter, thinner-walled cells once again, until the true end of the season. The resulting annual ring looks like two rings, but when this first ring is closely inspected it can be identified as false because the latewood boundary grades back into the earlywood. False rings occur in a number of species such as the Mexican cypress pictured here. Young ponderosa pines in southeastern Arizona commonly contain false rings as well. In this region, winter and early spring rains provide moisture to trees in the early part of the growing season. By May and June, the driest part of the year, trees have used up the available moisture and, if stressed enough, will begin to produce latewood cells. However, monsoon moisture usually begins to fall in July, and with this moisture, trees will again produce earlywood cells.

(Slide 7)Under other climate conditions, trees may produce only a partial ring or may fail to produce a ring at all. This may occur in a year in which conditions for growth are particularly harsh. These rings are called locally absent or missing rings and are commonly found in trees which are extremely sensitive to climate. ... This ring gets pinched between the rings to the left and right of it and is not visible at all in the lower portion of the slide. Very old and/or stressed trees may also produce very small, barely visible rings only a few cells wide which are called micro-rings. Because of the occurrence of false, locally absent, micro, and missing rings, it is especially important to prepare surfaces carefully and use the technique of crossdating to ensure exact calendar year dates for individual rings.

(Slide 8)The work of a dendrochronologist starts with the collection of samples in the field. The particular problem being addressed will dictate site and tree selection so that trees sampled are sensitive to the environmental variable of interest. ... Most commonly, tree-ring samples are collected using a hand-held increment borer to remove a small core of wood roughly 5mm in diameter from the trunk of the tree, ideally from bark to pith. ...Usually, two cores are taken from each tree to facilitate crossdating and to reduce the effects of ring-width variations related to differences in the two sides of the tree. The number of trees sampled from the site depends on how sensitive the trees are to the environment, but the average is about 20-30 trees.


Note that Foxtail pines (Pinus balfouriana) are closely related to Bristlecone pines ((Pinus longaeva), but the ranges of Great Basin bristlecone, Rocky Mountain bristlecone, and Foxtail pines do not overlap. The Colorado-Green River drainage has separated the 2 Bristlecone pine species for millennia. All three species are used to cross-check the Bristlecone Pine chronology.

Of particular note is the type of environmental conditions that cause false rings compared to the type of environmental conditions that would prevail in certain locations and the conditions -- such as what prevails for the Bristlecone pine, Pinus longaeva -- that are more likely to produce missing or micro rings, a condition that would make the trees appear younger than they really are.

Dendrochronologies are accurate and precise, due to identification of false and missing rings and determining annual rings from numerous samples are areas.

It should come as no surprise that the thousands of dendrochronologist working on the chronologies are actually able to discern the difference between rainfall or stress patterns and annual patterns in the formation of rings as the assemble the chronologies.

The challenge for people that honestly question the dendrochronologies is to have some modicum of understanding of the work that has gone into them, rather than flail away with dishonest or uneducated fantasy.

Note in passing that the minimum age for the earth is 7,000 years based on single Bristlecone Pines having lived that long. This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have disturbed their growing on top of these mountains -- no world wide flood occurred in this time.

Enjoy.



References
  1. Wikipedia, Methuselah, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methuselah_%28tree%29, accessed 23 Nov 2013
  2. Wikipedia, Prometheus, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prometheus_%28tree%29, accessed 23 Nov 2013
  3. Wikipedia, Oldest Tree, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_oldest_trees, accessed 23 Nov 2013
  4. Ara, Ancient Trees, website, 14 Feb 2012 http://www.ashtarcommandcrew.net/...topics/the-ancient-trees, accessed 23 Nov 2013
  5. Miller, L., The Ancient Bristlecone Pine, website sonic.net (c) 1995-2005 Photo Gallery
  6. Miller, L., The Ancient Bristlecone Pine, website sonic.net (c) 1995-2005 Dendrochronology
  7. Nash, S. E., 2002, Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating at the Millennium, Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 10, No. 3, September 2002 ((c) 2002) Full PDF Download Here
  8. Anonymous, "Paleo Slide Set: Tree Rings: Ancient Chronicles of Environmental Change " NOAA Paleoclimatology. Updated 20 Jul 2004. accessed 21nov2013 from NOAA Dendrochronology Slide Website

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : more to come

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : fixed references


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 40 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2013 10:34 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by mindspawn, posted 11-26-2013 4:42 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 42 of 119 (711769)
11-22-2013 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by mindspawn
11-20-2013 5:45 AM


Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration
My recent post Message 40 summarizes my arguments to date, and provides an outline for future posts covering these issues in greater detail.
Message 41 is the first of these posts, and it provides the basic methods of dendrochronology, especially those that sort out annual rings from false and missing rings.

In my post 27 I clearly agreed that Irish Oak, German Oak and some Bristlecone Pine trees show annual rings and are not in precipitation sensitive environments. So I fail to see why you keep emphasizing a point that we are in agreement about. ...

For the simple reasons that :

  1. the Irish oak dendrochronology is longer, goes further into the past, than the Bristlecone Pine,
  2. the German oak and pine dendrochronology is longer, goes further into the past, than the Bristlecone Pine,
  3. the extremely high consilience of these two dendrochronologies shows that the information has an extremely high degree of confidence (a better phrase than "truth" in scientific speak), and
  4. the very high consilience (99.5% agreement) of the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology with these two chronologies gives us a very high degree of confidence that it is accurate and precise and actually does represent annual layers.

Curiously, if you now accept the Irish and German chronologies, then your original "main problem" Message 3 ...

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. ...

... is fully answered. This correlation is the same (within 99.5%) for all three chronologies, and you can see it here:

http://www.ipp.phys.ethz.ch/...arbon/HajdasPhDthesis1993.pdf (9)

quote:

This curve can certainly be used to calibrate the raw 14C age calculation to account for variations in the 14C atmospheric concentrations that were in effect at each age and obtain dates closer to accurate calendar dates (generally younger than the raw 14C dates):

  • λ14C is 5730 years +/- 40 - Message 22
  • the raw 14C age formula is: t = {ln(Nf/No)/ln(1/2)}•λ14C
  • 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.

So now we can calculate what No was for each age:

Nf/No = (1/2)^(t/λ14C)

No = Nf•2^(t/5740)

Note that it is not the decay rate that is calibrated by the dendrochronology (that is determined in the lab), but the proportion of 14C/12C in the atmosphere at the time the sample grew (used atmospheric carbon).

... I asked you to show proof that specifically the living ancient White Mountain Bristlecone Pines also agree with the short term chronology (eg 1816). Could you kindly provide me with a link or post some evidence. This is my second request, my first request was in post 27.

That will be covered in the post on Bristlecone Pines, but until then you can consider that the consilience of the Bristlecone Pine chronology to the Irish Oak chronology and the German Oak and Pine chronology is "proof" (very high consilience shows very high confidence in the results) that it is accurate and precise, not just to 1816 but for the total length of the chronology, over 8,000 years.

Which, of course, is why I keep repeating the information on all three dendrochronologies.

Because to challenge Bristlecone Pine accuracy you then need to explain the consilience with the other two chronologies.

These chronologies also show that the earth is at least 12,000 years old as a minimum, and that there was no interruption in the tree growth by any catastrophic event during that period.

Meanwhile I await your response to Message 41

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : link, coding fixes

Edited by RAZD, : note added


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 36 by mindspawn, posted 11-20-2013 5:45 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by mindspawn, posted 11-26-2013 5:35 AM RAZD has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 43 of 119 (711973)
11-25-2013 5:18 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by RAZD
11-17-2013 5:30 PM


Lake Suigetsu varves
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.

Lake Suigetsu was separate from Lake Mikata before the canal was built that stopped the diaton growth in Lake Suigetsu a few hundred years ago.

I appreciate your explanation regarding the deposition of the silt in the central lake locations, and believe you have largely explained the seasonal as opposed to rainfall deposition of the silt particles. This effect is complicated by the fact that there was a land bridge separating Lake Mikata from Lake Suigetsu in the past.

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.

Curiously the fact that the diatoms settle fast in mass deaths and the clay sediment settles slowly fits in with my claim of 10-12 annual layers due to the fact that the rainfall season overlaps with the diatom bloom season. Freshwater diatom blooms have a varying life-span depending on location, but in many locations this lasts for a number of months in spring/summer. During the 5 to 6 months of heaviest rainfall the steady deposition would be interrupted by approximately 11 mass diatom die-offs due to the number of spring tides that overlap the rainy season.

(The rainfall season is about five and a half months long and would then overlap with about 11 or 12 of the 25 spring tides a year).

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

1) How were the volcanic layers dated ? With Th-Ur dating (hehe)

2) The consilience with coral data is completely irrelevant, that was done with Th-Ur dating.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by RAZD, posted 11-17-2013 5:30 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2013 8:40 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 77 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2013 11:12 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 102 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 44 of 119 (711974)
11-25-2013 6:38 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by RAZD
11-20-2013 9:25 AM


Re: Ignorance and Misunderstanding - Uranium and Thorium
The measurements were made in the lab, and you have references available to check that the information presented in the article were proper and accurate representations of the science.

I am not your research assistant: if YOU want to find something out YOU look for it.

So far you have provided ZERO evidence in this debate and just keep posting drivel. Your conjecture about mysterious significant storms is not just totally unfounded but totally invalidated by objective empirical evidence, and you want to nit-pick decay constant determinations ...

You say that I have provided ZERO evidence , and yet I have shown a link and discussed the method in which they have recently determined the half lives of thorium230 and uranium234:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0009254199001576

The value of λ238 is well known (see above for reference to its derivation), the quantities of 238U, 234U and 230Th are measured by highly accurate and precise (TIMS) methods and the calculation of λ234 and λ230 are simple math.

Here you make my whole point for me, the decay constant for Th230 and Ur 234 is based on the decay constant for U238. This ruins your case that Thorium dating is an independent measurement. You say "see above for reference to its derivation" and yet none of the above quotes even came close to having any reference to the derivation of the decay constant for U238 on which thorium/uranium decay relies.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2013 9:25 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2013 9:00 AM mindspawn has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18658
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 45 of 119 (711981)
11-25-2013 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mindspawn
11-25-2013 5:18 AM


Re: Lake Suigetsu varves
Thanks mindspawn for reposting most of this.

Lake Suigetsu was separate from Lake Mikata before the canal was built that stopped the diaton growth in Lake Suigetsu a few hundred years ago.

This well known piece of information explains why the chronology is "floating" rather than an absolute chronology.

I appreciate your explanation regarding the deposition of the silt in the central lake locations, and believe you have largely explained the seasonal as opposed to rainfall deposition of the silt particles.

That's a start.

... This effect is complicated by the fact that there was a land bridge separating Lake Mikata from Lake Suigetsu in the past.

Which isolated Lake Suigetsu, thus ensuring all inflow was from the river and local runoff (watershed).

Curiously the fact that the diatoms settle fast in mass deaths and the clay sediment settles slowly fits in with my claim of 10-12 annual layers due to the fact that the rainfall season overlaps with the diatom bloom season. Freshwater diatom blooms have a varying life-span depending on location, but in many locations this lasts for a number of months in spring/summer. During the 5 to 6 months of heaviest rainfall the steady deposition would be interrupted by approximately 11 mass diatom die-offs due to the number of spring tides that overlap the rainy season.

Believing this does not make it so. It doesn't matter how many die-offs you imagine, because you don't have the time to form a clay layer between them. There could be two, there could be twenty and you would still have one diatom layer because there would be no separation.

Please provide rainfall records, both current and historical so you can compare them to actual core sediment layers.

Please provide information on when these spring tides occurred so you can compare them to actual core sediment layers.

Integration of Old and New Lake Suigetsu 14C Data Sets
RADIOCARBON, Vol 55, Nr 4, 2013, p 2049–2058
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/16339/pdf

quote:
Abstract

The varved sediment profile of Lake Suigetsu, central Japan, offers an ideal opportunity from which to derive a terrestrial record of atmospheric radiocarbon across the entire range of the 14C dating method. Previous work by Kitagawa and van der Plicht (1998a,b, 2000) provided such a data set; however, problems with the varve-based age scale of their SG93 sediment core precluded the use of this data set for 14C calibration purposes. Lake Suigetsu was re-cored in summer 2006, with the retrieval of overlapping sediment cores from 4 parallel boreholes enabling complete recovery of the sediment profile for the present “Suigetsu Varves 2006” project (Nakagawa et al. 2012). Over 550 14C determinations have been obtained from terrestrial plant macrofossils picked from the latter SG06 composite sediment core, which, coupled with the core’s independent varve chronology, provides the only non-reservoir-corrected 14C calibration data set across the 14C dating range.

... Like-wise, depth control in SG06 is at 1-mm precision (Nakagawa et al. 2012), as defined by digital photographs of the freshly exposed core section surface taken immediately after extraction from the lake (thereby minimizing subsequent color changes through oxidization and any ost-extraction/storage-related expansion/contraction of the sediment).

The span of missing sediment between successive SG93 core sections is obtained through subtracting the equivalent SG06 composite core depth of the bottom of a given SG93 core section from that of the top of the underlying section (Table 2). The age span of this gap is given in the varve count and 14C model-derived age scale of Bronk Ramsey et al. (2012; see also Staff et al. 2013; given in SG062012 yr).

The gaps between core sections are all <20 issue).


The new chronology has no gaps and is longer than the previous one, more accurate (1mm compared to 3mm) and the core diameter is larger. Previous core sections are now aligned to the new set and the plant macrofossils from the old cores are used in the new correlation curve.

There are some pictures (in color on the online PDF version) of the cores, which you may want to look at so you can see if there are any of the effects you claim.

1) How were the volcanic layers dated ? With Th-Ur dating (hehe)

Perhaps you could read the article and find out. Even if it weren't, you still need to deal with the demonstrated accuracy and precision of Uranium-Thorium dating.

2) The consilience with coral data is completely irrelevant, that was done with Th-Ur dating.

Which is why it is consilience. Saying it is irrelevant does NOT explain the high degree of consilience between two different systems, when there would be NO such correlation if either were based on erroneous measurements ... unless you have a means to explain why they both are wrong in the same way at the same time. Otherwise just claiming it is irrelevant is a sign of cognitive dissonance and your attempt to resolve it by ignoring information.

I'll get to Lake Suigetsu again in greater detail later. In the meantime I await your response to Message 41 and Message 42

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : c/d

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 43 by mindspawn, posted 11-25-2013 5:18 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by mindspawn, posted 12-03-2013 7:29 AM RAZD has responded

  
Prev12
3
45678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017