Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 120 (8763 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 06-22-2017 7:48 PM
389 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: aristotle
Post Volume:
Total: 811,870 Year: 16,476/21,208 Month: 2,365/3,593 Week: 478/882 Day: 99/97 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Author Topic:   Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 76 of 119 (712265)
12-01-2013 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by mindspawn
12-01-2013 4:12 AM


Re: Uranium and Thorium
http://news.stanford.edu/news/2010/august/sun-082310.html
http://www.purdue.edu/...r-flares,-give-advance-warning.html

Neither of these documents give any information of the measurements of decay rates. These seem to be more 'news' articles than scientific studies, with the associated hyperbole.

Additional experimental evidence for a solar influence on nuclear decay rates, which is the technical paper that is the subject of the Purdue article you referenced

quote:
The measured 36Cl data are shown in Fig. 1. These data points are the weekly counts from 7 January 2005 to 17 June 2011, a total of 334 points. Since the 36Cl decay rate can be assumed to be relatively constant over the five years of the series reported here, the only adjustment to the data presented in Fig. 1 is to normalize each measured count by dividing the measured counts by the average of all 334 counts ( x = 124593, &sigma = 632).

The standard deviation is 632 so the majority of the counts are within 124593+/-632 per week or vary +/-0.5%

this does not affect α++ or β- decay, which are the decay events involved in radiometric dating,

1) You are incorrect. If you had read all the articles you would have seen that alpha decay and beta decay were affected.

Seems so, however ...

This effect has not been shown to apply to all radioactive processes, and the effect is a slight periodic variation around a mean with random events still involved all along that "slight" modulation.

There is no known cause for this pattern at this time.

The overall effect on total annual decay events would be virtually nil, meaning that half-lives would not be affected. The long term decay is still effectively constant.

no half-lives were changed,

2) If you understand that the half-life exponential formula is based on the randomness of decay you would understand that the half-lives are completely affected by the discovery that the process of decay is not random.

But the process is still random, even with an "ever so slight" modulation around the mean, and still producing the same half-life -- after 170 years (32Si half-life) you would still have the same total decay events for instance.

Incorrect. You are wrong as explained above. The decay exponential formula of a half-life is wholly dependent on randomness, which is assumption that there is no cause/effect that causes the decay event.

And you still have randomness, randomness that is the primary effect, even with an "ever so slight" modulation you still don't have predictable decay for a single atom -- all you can say is that within a specified period you will have a proportion of the atoms decay. That has not changed, and half-lives over a decade are not affected by an "ever so slight" wiggle in the overall average rate of decay.

And you still don't have a cause ...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/...nuclear/halfli2.html
"radioactive decay is a statistical process which depends upon the instability of the particular radioisotope, but which for any given nucleus in a sample is completely unpredictable. The decay process and the observed half-life dependence of radioactivity can be predicted by assuming that individual nuclear decays are purely random events. If there are N radioactive nuclei at some time t, then the number ΔN which would decay in any given time interval Δt would be proportional to N: where λ is a constant of proportionality (decay constant)."

And that still holds true.

Meanwhile you still have:

Emery, G.T., Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science Vol. 22: 165-202 (Volume publication date December 1972), DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ns.22.120172.001121 http://www.annualreviews.org/.../annurev.ns.22.120172.001121

quote:
One of the paradigms of nuclear science since the very early days of its study has been the general understanding that the half-life, or decay constant, of a radioactive substance is independent of extranuclear considerations. Early workers tried to change the decay constants of various members of the natural radioactive series by varying the temperature between 24 K and 1280 K, by applying pressure of up to 2000 atm, by taking sources down into mines and up to the Jungfraujoch, by applying magnetic fields of up to 83,000 Gauss, by whirling sources in centrifuges, and by many other ingenious techniques. Occasional positive results were usually understood, in time, as the result of changes in the counting geometry, or of the loss of volatile members of the natural decay chains. This work was reviewed by Meyer & Schweidler (1), Kohlrausch (2), and Bothe (3). Especially interesting for its precision is the experiment of Curie & Kamerlingh Onnes (4), who reported that lowering the temperature of a radium preparation to the boiling point of liquid hydrogen changed its activity, and thus its decay constant, by less than about 0.05%. Especially dramatic was an experiment of Rutherford & Petavel (5), who put a sample of radium emanation inside a steel-encased cordite bomb. Even though. temperatures of 2500°C and pressures of 1000 atm were estimated to have occurred during the explosion, no discontinuity in the activity of the sample was observed.

Note that 83,000 Gauss is 270,000 times stronger than the Earth's current magnetic field at the surface on the equator, on the order of magnitude of a high resolution research MRI, and 3-6 times the strength of a clinical MRI (Wikipedia).

We also know that rates have not changed significantly over time because of

  • stellar novae have shown decay rates identical to what we see hear on earth after traveling thousands of years through space (see Message 109)
  • When we look at the changes to radioactive decay, we can also look at Are Uranium Halos the best evidence of (a) an old earth AND (b) constant physics?, where we see that the energy of decay is tied to the decay rate, and that this would cause changes to the halos: uranium halos would not exist unless other aspects are magically changed as well.
  • Then there is the evidence of the Oklo natural reactors in Gabon (Africa), where 235U spontaneously began to fission due to the concentration of uranium in this area. When we look at the byproducts we see the same formations that we see today from man-made reactors. This means there has been no change in the way radioactive elements break down in the last 2 billion years.

We can discuss this in greater detail later -- for now I want to concentrate on the annual counting methods of determining age and their consiliences that show high confidence in the results.

Even without radioactive decay the evidence shows earth's age is demonstrably much older than any YEC concept
Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : link info

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by mindspawn, posted 12-01-2013 4:12 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 77 of 119 (712266)
12-01-2013 11:12 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by mindspawn
11-25-2013 5:18 AM


Lake Suigetsu varves ... revisited
Some of this has already been presented here

Lake Suigetsu Varves

Scientists lead by Dr. H. Kitagawa were able to measure a lake varve chronology covering a period of 29,100 years. The data from the lake does not have accurate information on the present, due to changes in the lake that disrupted the chronological deposition process (now connected by canal to another lake).They were, however, able to measure and match the 14C/12C levels of organic artifacts taken with the core to 14C/12C levels and their corresponding dendro/calendar ages documented for the German oak and pine tree ring data. This resulted in high correlation for the overlap period between 8,830 BP and 11,550 BP, making this a floating chronology that is now anchored by matching 14C/12C levels. BP refers to 'Before Present' which is defined as 1950 CE.

The fast settling diatom shells (which settle to the bottom in days) and the slow settling clay particles (that can take months to settle) ensure that these layers are annual. Only during fall and winter months, after the diatoms have died, is there sufficient time to form a discernable clay layer

A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14C calibration curve(1)

quote:
Lake Suigetsu is located near the coast of the Sea of Japan (35°35'N, 135°53'E). The lake is 10 km around the perimeter and covers 4.3 km2. It is a typical kettle-type lake, nearly flat at the center, Ca. 34 m deep. A 75-m-long continuous core (Lab code = SG) and four short piston cores (Lab codes = 501, -2, -3 and -4) were taken from the center of the lake before 1993 (Kitagawa et al. 1995).

The sediments are characterized by dark-colored clay with white layers due to spring season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin, sub-millimeter scale laminations or "varves". Based on observation of varve thickness change, we expect that the annually laminated sediment records the paleoenvironmental changes during the past 100 ka.

We have performed AMS 14C measurements on >250 terrestrial macrofossil samples of the annual laminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu. Here, we report varve and 14C chronologies of these sediments. The combined varve and 14C chronologies back to 40,000 BP are used to reconstruct a 14C calibration curve for the total range of the 14C dating method.

Based on a more detailed analysis of the varve sediments, the previous chronology obtained mainly from the short piston cores (Kitagawa et al. 1995) is revised for two reasons: 1) a more precise matching of the floating Lake Suigetsu varve chronology to the available dendrochronologies with a high-resolution AMS 14C data set, and 2) an updated varve chronology due to previous miscounting of varve numbers. ... In order to reconstruct a more precise and longer varve chronology for the laminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu, we have reassessed the varve chronology in the whole section during the deglaciation as well as the Glacial up to a depth of 30.45 m.

Figure 1 shows the varve and 14C chronologies as a function of depth of the SG core. Until now, the varve numbers have been counted in the 10.42-30.45 m deep section. The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1). The 14C ages at 10.42, 30.45 and 35 m depth are ca. 7800, 35,000 and 42,000 BP, respectively.

In order to reconstruct the calendar time scale, we compared the Lake Suigetsu chronology with calibration curves obtained from the absolute German oak (shifted by 41 yr at 5241 BC to the older direction, Kromer et al. 1996) and the floating German pine (Kromer and Becker 1993) using the least squares minimization. The revised German oak and the floating German pine calibration curves were combined into one calibration curve by moving the age of German pine chronology.

Figure 2 shows the best match between the tree-ring and the Lake Suigetsu chronologies, estimated by minimizing the weighted sum of squared differences between the 14C ages of macrofossils and the tree-ring calibration curve. We found the best match when the German pine chronology is shifted by 160 yr with respect to the pine chronology reported by Kromer and Becker (1993). The features in our data overlapping the tree ring calibration agree very well, even for "wiggles" in the 14C calibration curves. Using this match, we defined the absolute time scale for the Lake Suigetsu varves chronology. The 29,100-yr Lake Suigetsu chronology then covers the absolute age range from 8830 to 37,930 cal BP. Our varve chronology also confirms the revised floating German pine chronology, which was recently shifted by 160 yr to the older direction (Bjorck et a1.1996; Kromer et a1.1996).

The combined 14C and varve chronologies from Lake Suigetsu are used to calibrate the 14C time scale beyond the range of the absolute tree-ring calibration. ...


The Lake Suigetsu varve chronology was included in the IntCal98 study, but was dropped for IntCal04 due to the problems that had been identified. With new and additional core data and corrections to the 1998 data (see below for details) they were reinstated in IntCal13:

IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0 - 50,000 Years Cal BP(2)

quote:
The Northern Hemisphere calibration is well defined by tree-ring measurements from 0 to 13,900 cal BP and supplemented by the addition of the Lake Suigetsu macrofossil data, the only other bona fide atmospheric record, from 13,900 cal BP to the end of the range of the dating method. ...

The effect of using the IntCal13 curve for calibration, as opposed to IntCal09 or the stand-alone Lake Suigetsu data, for dating terrestrial materials and, specifically, the Paleolithic, is discussed by Bronk Ramsey et al. (2013, this issue). Age ranges derived using Lake Suigetsu data alone and IntCal13 overlap, but using the Suigetsu data set results in more disjointed ranges than using the smoother IntCal13 curve.


ie -- you could use just the German oak and pine dendrochronology and the Lake Suigetsu varves for determining calendar age with high accuracy and precision.

They took some of the 14C wiggle out to smooth the curves mostly at the earliest end of the curve, beyond the age of the last counted varve. This serves as high validation of the varves, as the criteria and review process that goes into the IntCal calibrations are very strict compared to standard scientific peer review processes.

Note that Fig 1 in the first article above shows several ash layers, for which four volcanoes are identified, and these provide possible cross-checks on the measured ages, or this provides accurate dates for the eruptions. Two of these ash layers correlate with information from another source:

Estimation of eruptive ages of the late Pleistocene tephra layers derived from Daisen and Sambe Volcanoes based on AMS-14C dating of the moor sediments at Ohnuma Moor in the Chugoku Mountains, Western Japan PDF(3)

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

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

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


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

14C calibration will be discussed later and come back to this information at that time. For now all we are concerned with is the matching of actual measured 14C/12C levels in the organic artifacts with the actual measured 14C/12C levels in the tree rings (a match that would be highly improbable if not due to having the same calendar age due to the decay of 14C). This match then anchors the floating varve chronology.

Note that there is a discussion of this research at Lake Varves, Answers in Genesis(4)

quote:
One of the products of the continuing cycles of the seasons can be found on the bottoms of some lakes. Each spring, tiny plants bloom in Lake Suigetsu, a small body of water in Japan. When these one-cell algae die, they drift down, shrouding the lake floor with a thin, white layer. The rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle on the bottom. At the bottom of Lake Suigetsu, thin layers of microscopic algae have been piling up for many years. The alternating layers of dark and light count the years like tree rings. ...

The results from just one source could possibly be readily contested, but in this case the scientists have correlated the results from multiple sources including that of Lake Gosciaz (Poland), German oak and pine tree ring chronologies and also calibrations from coral data. Many in the scientific community are proposing the result of the above study as a "calibration" to radiometric C14 data, see Appendix A. Also the data seems to indicate no more that a 16.7 percent error due to deviation of C14 in the atmosphere for the past 40,000 years.

Conclusion: The apparent close correlation of the dating results from multiple sources appears to be strong evidence for an earth much older than 10,000 years!

Also C14 dating affirms Scripture/Scripture affirms C14 dating!


The consilience in the data from different sources gives high confidence in the results.

As noted above, Lake Suigetsu was re-cored in the summer of 2006 to resolve the issues that had been raised since the first core study:

Integration of Old and New Lake Suigetsu 14C Data Sets PDF(5)

quote:
... In 1998, Kitagawa and van der Plicht (1998a,b, 2000) published the first such record, composed of 14C measurements of terrestrial macrofossils extracted from the varved sediment profile of Lake Suigetsu, ... However, problems with the varve-based calendar age scale of their “SG93” sediment core precluded the widespread adoption of this data set for calibration purposes. These problems resulted primarily from gaps between successively drilled sections of the core, but were also due to uncertainties in the varve counting itself (van der Plicht et al. 2004; Staff et al. 2010). Therefore, Lake Suigetsu was re-cored in 2006, with the retrieval of 4 parallel, overlapping sediment cores this time enabling complete recovery of the sedimentary sequence and the subsequent construction of the new “SG06” composite sediment profile (Nakagawa et al. 2012). Over 550 14C determinations have been obtained from terrestrial plant macrofossils picked from SG06, which have been coupled with the core’s improved, independent varve chronology (produced through the integration of 2 complementary counting techniques; Marshall et al. 2012; Schlolaut et al. 2012) to provide what is still the only non-reservoir-corrected 14C calibration data set across the entire 14C dating range (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2012).

As with the construction of the composite SG06 sediment profile from the 4 contributing, parallel cores (Nakagawa et al. 2012), archive U-channel sediment from most of the SG93 core sections from which 14C measurements had been previously obtained (“SG93-11” to “SG93-14” and “SG93-20” to “SG93-36”) were fitted to the SG06 sediment profile through direct matching of distinct marker horizons (tephras, flood layers, turbidite layers, and other distinct sedimentological structures) between the respective cores. ...

Most SG93 core sections could be matched without difficulty to SG06 through purely visual means, despite the fact that the SG93 sediment had oxidized and therefore lost much of its visible lamination. Only a handful of SG93 core sections were more difficult to place. Figure 1 shows 2 examples of this physical matching process ...

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 ...

The gaps between core sections are all <20 cm, with the exception of that between sections SG93-28 and SG93-29, which was a “known problem” to the original authors (Kitagawa and van der Plicht 1998a,b, 2000), ...

Using the revised core depth/varve age information derived for these SG93 core sections (now lacking the sedimentary gaps that had previously been included, but unrecognized), the SG93 14C data are demonstrated to be in excellent agreement with those from the SG06 study (Figure 2). Through integrating the 2 cores’ data sets, the 565 14C determinations from the Suigetsu Varves 2006 project are bolstered by 243 SG93 14C data points. This significantly enhances the resolution of the combined Lake Suigetsu calibration data set, with 808 individual 14C determinations spanning the last 52,800 cal yr, as recently published by Bronk Ramsey et al. (2012).

Table 1 Equivalent SG06 composite depth (August 2009 version; Nakagawa et al. 2012) and varve count and 14C model-derived calendar age scale (given in “SG062012 yr BP”; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2012; Staff et al. 2013) for the 26 SG93 core sections (SG93-11 to SG93-36) from which 14C determinations were obtained by Kitagawa and van der Plicht (1998a,b, 2000). (Continued)

SG93 core
section
Original SG93
depth (cm)
Original
SG93 vyr BP
SG06 composite
depth (cm)
Revised
SG062012 yr BP
SG93-32Top2770.033,4702930.135,504 +/- 81
Bottom2862.034,9463015.336,964 +/- 87
SG93-33Top2862.034,9463027.037,150 +/- 86
Bottom2953.036,4023123.538,441 +/- 89
SG93-34Top2953.036,4023134.038,586 +/- 90
Bottom3045.037,9303203.139,523 +/- 98
SG93-35Top3045.0n/a3217.839,744 +/- 99
Bottom3136.0n/a3297.640,840 +/- 79
SG93-36Top3136.0n/a3302.040,901 +/- 78
Bottom3227.0n/a3385.142,098 +/- 84

The original earliest counted varve was 37,930 cal yr BP (before 1950), and this has been corrected to be 39,523 +/- 98 BP, a correction to 1,593 years older, the error (+/-98 years) is 0.25%, and the varve count has been extended to 42,098 BP (before 1950). This new study correlates with and confirms the oldstudy was within 4% of the new study data. They were able to use the old data together with the new data to form a combined chronology. This is mostly due to higher precision and accuracy in the varve counting in the new study. They also were able to count some more recent layers than before, and with the extension of the German Oak and Pine chronology this has increased the length of the overlap making the anchoring of the varve chronology more accurate.

The current counted annual varves run for a time period of 35,075 years (from 7,023 BP to 42,098 BP if dates are correctly aligned with the tree chronology), and this alone is several times older than any YEC model for the age of the earth. The varve layers continue down below the limits of C-14 dating to ~100,000 years, with some assumptions made below the 42,098 BP cal yr BP level, as the data below this level does not use annual varve layers but an estimated rate of sedimentation. Those estimated dates cannot be used for our minimum annual layer counts other than to say that the earth is older than the annual varves show. Thus either of these two scenarios must apply:

  • This chronology is totally independent of the one from the tree-ring data in spite of several thousand years of matching Carbon-14 levels, and the minimum age of the earth is 12,473 years + ? + 35,075 years = at least 47,548 years old (2013), OR
  • These chronologies overlap as determined by matching the measured 14C/12C levels, and the minimum age of the earth is 42,098 years BP - 42,161 years old (2013)

Note that this extends annual chronological dating to the archaeological dates found for the cave paintings at Lasceaux and Chauvet - the archaeological record shows that an early nomadic cave using civilization that involved stone tools, burial ceremonies and undeniably impressive artwork at the Lasceaux Caves in southern France around 15,000 to 13,000 BC, (what is known as the late Aurignacian period) or 17000 years ago, and at a cave near Chauvet (south-central France) around 30,340 and 32,410 years ago. We have verified a chronological age for these artifacts, and we have hardly begun to get into the age of Homo sapiens, the hominid ancestors of man, the age of life on the earth or even the actual ancient age of the earth.

Note further that the layers extend back to 100,000 years ago but that this research only concentrated on the last 45,000 years to calibrate C-14 dating. Using only the counted varves this chronology extends back to 42,098 years BP (before 1950).

The earth is at least 42,161 years old (2013)

The minimum age for the earth is now at least 42,161 years old (2013), based on the highly accurate and precise varve counting in Lake Suigetsu (+/-0.25% error). This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have disturbed the varve deposition process -- no world wide flood occurred in this time.

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

And this is still only the early stages of annual counting methods.

Enjoy.



References
  1. Kitagawa, H., van der Plicht, J., A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14C calibration curve, Radiocarbon vol 40, nr 1 p 505-515, 1998, https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/2037/2040
  2. Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Ramsey, C.B., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason,H., Hajdas, I., Hatté, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu,M., Reimer,R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Christian S M Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht,J., IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0–50,000 Years cal BP, Radiocarbon, Vol 55, Nr 4, 2013, p 1869–1887, https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/16947/pdf
  3. Katoh, S., Handa, K., Hyodo, M., Sato, H., Nakamura, T., Yamashita, T., Danhara, T., Estimation of eruptive ages of the late Pleistocene tephra layers derived from Daisen and Sambe Volcanoes based on AMS-14C dating of the moor sediments at Ohnuma Moor in the Chugoku Mountains, Western Japan, Nature and Human Activities, vol 11, p 29-50, 2007 http://hitohaku.jp/research_collections/e2007pdf/p29-50.pdf
  4. accuracyingenesis.com, Lake Varves, Daily, H., Editor, [2013, November 29]: http://www.accuracyingenesis.com/varves.html
  5. Staff, R.A., Schlolaut, G., Ramsey, C.B., Brock,F., Bryant, C.L., Kitagawa, H., van der Plicht, J., Marshall, M.H., Brauer, A., Lamb, H.F., Payne, R.L., Tarasov,P.E., Haraguchi,T., Gotanda, K., Yonenobu, H., Yokoyama, Y., Nakagawa, T., Suigetsu 2006 Project Members, Integration of Old and New Lake Suigetsu 14C Data Sets, radiocarbon, Vol 55, Nr 4, 2013, p 2049–2058, 2013, https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/16339/pdf

Edited by RAZD, : added IntCal13

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 not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 78 of 119 (712271)
12-01-2013 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
11-28-2013 12:18 PM


Re: Mysterious Magical Weather Stress Rings
Then you have a problem when you argue against the recent Bristlecone pine tree ring chronology, because it matches (cross-checks) with the Irish oak chronology

No, in fact all the observations favor my argument. You are not seeing my argument and this weakens your position. A good debate would be to understand my position, and then respond to it, yet you are still not seeing the strength of my position.

Let me explain, if all the trees have good recent cross-checks including Bristlecone Pines in Colorado but not including White Mountain Bristlecone Pines which are in a dry area, then we have the problem that the oldest trees on earth, White Mountain BCP trees are obviously undergoing a separate annual tree ring growth pattern to the rest of the world.
1) This puts doubt on the annual nature of the white Mountain BCP tree rings because you are not showing recent cross-checks with specifically these old trees.
2) This puts doubt on the annual nature of all trees rings in past ages where the White Mountain BCP trees do actually match the rest of the world's tree ring growth patterns during times when weather was more intermittent (mid/early Holocene)

Due to the fact that I have specifically asked you repeatedly to show me that the White Mountain oldest trees on earth have recent cross-checks, and instead you have shown me that the European trees cross-check with Colorado BCP trees strongly weakens your argument and favors my argument. Where is the 1816 cross-check in the white Mountain BCP trees? (fourth request!)

A new assertion without evidence ... but how come those rings match the Bristlecone pine rings?

Because weather patterns were different then, dryness and also monsoons, these weather patterns were more compatible with multiple ring growth as per the White Mountain BCP trees. I have shown you two links showing that weather patterns were different back then compared to today's European weather. This explains the ancient matches. I am still waiting for you to show evidence for the recent White Mountain BCP cross-matching.

Actually we can go further back than than.

There is King Hezekiah's tunnel for instance

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/...80%93-7-hezekiahs-tunnel

If you read the article, they were trying to prove that the tunnel wasn't recently produced, because doubters were doubting they had the technology in biblical times to build that tunnel. The carbon dates given were not exact, for example Ur-Th dating gave a date of 400bc for later stalactites in the tunnel, hardly an exact proof of biblical dates. But enough to prove their point that the tunnel was old. Of course carbon dating will prove their point because carbon dating overestimates the dates increasingly from about 2000bp and so would produce an older date.

The 14C plant dates (700-800 BCE) and U-Th stalactite dates (400 BCE) bracket the tunnel age at 400 BCE to 800 BCE, which also brackets the time of Hezekiah's rule. That's a fairly wide range for judging accuracy, but it certainly shows they are in the right ball-park and cannot be significantly off by factors of 11 or 12.

I'm not claiming a factor of 11-12 immediately after the year 2000, its the incorrect calibration during the 2000-4000BC period that creates an increasingly larger carbon dating problem especially in the 12 000-60 000 bp range. In my own view, 2000bp to 2700bp will still have carbon dates in the same "ballpark" just as you are confirming. As we get closer to 3000bp the discrepancies become emphasized until they are way out by 4000bp.

The earliest date in Fig 2 is ~2660 BCE with 7 samples and an average raw 14C 'age' of 4120 to 4130 BP (before 1950), which can then be compared against the 14C 'age' on the dendrochronology correlation to find the comparable dendrochronology calendar age. The dendrochronology correlation is shown as two lines in Fig 2

The Shaw date (red bar in Fig 1A) is ~2660 BCE based on historical documentation.

Converting the raw 14C 'age' of 4125 BP to dendrochronologial calendar age gives a date range of ~2700 BCE (minus 1&sigma line intersept) to ~2620 BCE (plus 1&sigma line intersept) for an average dendro age of ~2660+/-40 BCE. Note that +/-40 years in over 4,000 years is an error of +/-1%. The error is partly due to the two stage process of using 14C data to convert to dendrochronological calendar age.

Note that this conversion does not depend on the calculation of 14C 'age' -- that is a purely mathematical conversion of the measured amounts of 14C and 12C in the samples, and then comparing those 14C/12C values to ones found in the tree rings to find the best match to the tree rings, but it does introduce an error due to the band of rings that match those levels.

So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 99% consilience between history and tree ring chronologies.

You are introducing new arguments here before we have completed or summarized our current discussions. I prefer Rohl's revised chronology which reveals large discrepancies in the mainstream Egyptian chronology. If you correct all the mainstream chronologies in favor of more logical chronologies in each case, we get a more logical consilience in accordance with the much stronger magnetic field in early history. ie the 10% adjustment to carbon dates is illogical compared to the 50% change in magnetic field strength in mainstream chronology. If we calibrate the timeframes according to the corrected history, we compress the timeframes, and then the carbon ratios align better with the magnetic field changes.

Another grasping at straws, and you are running out of room ... at 4125 BP for our earliest to date match between dendrochronology and history we are half way through the Bristlecone and Irish dendrochronology calendars ... with only ~1% error.

Do you realize that Monsoon is a season rather than a single storm event?

4125Bp is your date. Rohl's chronology compresses recent history after he showed evidence that two Egyptian king lists were concurrent rather than consecutive. Regarding dendrochronology you need to align recent White Mountain BCP trees with recent European chronology to make your point.

Yes you have the monsoon season, but trees in monsoon areas often have multiple rings. http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/...dicals/earthmatters/13/EMv13n1.pdf


This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 12:18 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 12:39 AM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 79 of 119 (712273)
12-01-2013 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
11-28-2013 7:47 PM


Re: Dendrochronology Basics
This is my third reply -- see Message 52
2,040-year-old tree's rings read like global history

WOW! I have asked you repeatedly to show me proof of recent cross-checking with WHITE MOUNTAIN Bristlecone Pine trees and you answer with a link about Colorado Bristlecone Pine Trees. Unfortunately this failure of yours so far is ruining your argument. You may not understand why but your failure to focus on the White Mountain 1816 drought tree rings ruins your objection to multiple annual rings on the White Mountain BCP trees, and ruins your argument that other trees do not have multiple rings when they undergo dryer weather conditions like the White Mountains.

OF course the Colorado trees would cross-check with European trees that have wetter weather, I agree on the annual nature of the Colorado tree rings as per your link:
http://zfacts.com/...6-CCTimes-2,040-year-old-tree-rings.pdf

Despite many many posts, and numerous copy and pastes I feel this argument is making no progress due to you failing to actually discuss my objections. You are flooding the thread with a lot of irrelevant links and posts.

and again it is a matter of diminishing returns instead of an on/off situation ... the water available becomes more difficult to extract so the availability is on an exponential curve, and, like radioactive decay, it would have a 'half-life' -- thus the supply would diminish but never stop. Until it freezes ... at the end of the 6 to 12 week growing season ...

More statements without evidence. I asked for your evidence that dolomite will retain moisture throughout summer and this is your reply? Not convincing at all. Wood does not grow when the water supply runs out, the onus is on you to show me that the tree or the soil retains enough moisture to grow when there is absolutely no water supply.

It's 6 to 12 weeks, just search my previous posts.

Your rainfall charts do not apply -- look instead at the one I provided. Note average precipitation is ~0.5" ...

Average precipitation per month? per rainfall? Which chart are you referring to you, i thought you said 12 inches per year? If the average is 0.5 per month this would mean 6 inches per year. A daily rainfall chart, even with your figures, would show the summer rainfalls are intermittent. the less rain, the more dependent the tree is on each rainfall, and the stronger my argument becomes. So your above point supports my argument that rain is rare, the soil is dry, and the trees stop growing between rainfalls. I am still waiting for your evidence that trees can continue to grow through dry spells by retaining moisture , or that with the tiny rainfalls you are claiming the dolomite can retain moisture for weeks at a time on some of the driest slopes on earth.

Glad you think that -- some progress maybe.

The problem you have is this:

the Bristlecone pine chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the Irish oak chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the German oak chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the Bristlecone pine matches the oak chronologies wiggle pattern with a shift of 37 years ... older.
Rather than too many rings it has too few.

I'm referring to the White Mountain Bristlecone Pines, the alleged oldest trees on earth. These trees are unique compared to say Colorado Bristlecone Pines that have more moisture. Which known date is tied into the White Mountain Bristlecone Pines? Please provide evidence or stop claiming that these trees are so old. (you really need to support your claims, dolomite soil is your only argument so far, your weather claims support my position). Your short summer growing season argument ruined your spring melt growing season argument, and so your own dissonance is starting to agree with my position. (a growing season of tiny intermittent summer rainfalls has been my claim all along, you seem to now agree with me and seem to have abandoned your once off spring melt argument)Glad you think that -- some progress maybe.

The problem you have is this:

the Bristlecone pine chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the Irish oak chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the German oak chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the Bristlecone pine matches the oak chronologies wiggle pattern with a shift of 37 years ... older.
Rather than too many rings it has too few.

Ancient cross-matching supports my position IF you are unable to prove recent cross-matching.

Regarding your proof of storage of water, as you quoted:
http://canopy.evergreen.edu/...ntent/Citations/Citation.aspx
"Whole tree transpiration can be maintained with stored water for about a week, but it can be maintained with stored water from the upper crown alone for no more than a few hours."
Just one week of storage... this supports my argument.

Different trees have different degrees of this ability, those that have lived in minimal water ecologies generally have better developed storage than those that live in lush conditions. Bristlecone pines have lived in this high altitude dry environment for several millenia and have adapted to it.

You need proof of this storage. Maybe they have adapted by using up the moisture more rapidly and then going dormant. You need to present your evidence how BCP trees store water more than other trees, maybe they survive because they do not store, but more easily survive dormancy between growth.

The problem for you though, is not the strength of your belief (human pride?), but in the fact that you are exhibiting classic cognitive dissonance resolution patterns. This has nothing to do with scientists pursuing information and everything with personal dissonance resolution ... blaming the messengers is classic dissonance resolution behavior, and it allows you to feel 'safe' in your belief rather than have to confront the information provided.

I'm seeing this cognitive dissonance in your posts, in the manner in which you avoid answering my questions directly and succintly and flood this thread with a lot of irrelevant information and are starting to contradict yourself. (spring growth or short summer growth - please make up your mind)

Can you really tell me that one living tree that is over 5,000 years old, and one dead but standing tree that is over 7,000 years old do not have thousands of overlapped years within an 8,000 year chronology? That these two trees alone count for most of the chronology to 7,600 BP when the error compared to the oak chronologies was found to be only 0.48%? Really?

Once again I asked you for evidence. I'm getting nothing except a fictional diagram. I wish dendrochronology was so accurate, but frankly it is not. Rohl an Egyptologist points out on page 489 of his book "A test of time" that the SAME tree can cross match 3 times with another sequence with a match within the range of acceptability to dendrochronologists. (incorrect matching sequences can have a higher match value than accepted matched sequences - t-values of 4 or 5)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 7:47 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 1:16 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 8:55 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 7:26 PM mindspawn has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 80 of 119 (712280)
12-02-2013 12:39 AM
Reply to: Message 78 by mindspawn
12-01-2013 1:45 PM


Re: Mysterious Magical Weather Stress Rings
No, in fact all the observations favor my argument. You are not seeing my argument and this weakens your position. A good debate would be to understand my position, and then respond to it, yet you are still not seeing the strength of my position.

Your argument is rather hard to follow when you make ad hoc assertions as you go, grabbing at straws and going down rabbit holes.

Let me explain, if all the trees have good recent cross-checks including Bristlecone Pines in Colorado ...

They do.

... but not including White Mountain Bristlecone Pines ...

Which is false and something you have made up ... one of your rabbit holes ...

... which are in a dry area, ...

But not one without sufficient water to grow, slowly, during each 6 to 12 week growing period, mostly on snow melt.

The climate and ecology of the Bristlecone pine is high, dry and cool, with minimal precipitation, most occuring as snow, which occurs even in July. The trees have adapted to the environment by taking advantage of the resources available.

Here is information from Substrate-oriented distribution of Bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California

quote:
Superficial inspection of the White Mt. stands of bristlecone pine reveals that their development is greatly affected by geological substrate (Fig. 2). Of the several rock types exposed in the subalpine elevational belt, only one, a dolomitic limestone, supports well-­developed forests of bristlecone pine. The other substrates, principally a quartz1tic sandstone and a granite, have, by comparison, poorly developed forests, and are often vegetated by a high-altitude sage­ brush community.

The White Mountains are a small but high desert range parallel to and east of the Sierra Nevada, and separated from them by the north end of the Owens Valley ... This area includes mainly elevations from 9,500 to 11,500 ft, where all slope directions and varied geologic substrates are represented.

Three groups of geologic substrates are extensively exposed in the study area. Firstly, there are sandstones ... our study was restricted to those of the Campito Formation which are primarily quartzitic. Secondly, there are granitic rocks ... generally medium gray in color. The third substrate type is a dolomite belonging to the Precambrian Reed Dolomite formation (Nelson, 1962). This dolomite is massive, medium-grained, and light gray to white.

... The degree of surface rock cover was estimated at 20 widely separated sites on each of the three substrates, and the following semi-quantitative averages obtained: dolomite, 77%; sandstone, 84%; granite, 27%.

... All samples were collected at 11,000 ft elevation, and the figures presented are averages of analyses of soils from both north and south slopes; there is no appreciable difference between soils from north slopes and those from south slopes. Mechanical analysis of the soils was by the hydrometer method (Bouyoucos, 1936) and soil moisture tension values were determined by the method of Richards (1949). Available moisture was calculated from the difference between the values at 1/3 atm and 15 atm tension. Cation exchange capacity was determined using modifications of methods of Mehlich (1948) and Bower et al. (1952).

... The three geologic substrates differ in reflectance characteristics. Dolomite, being light gray or white, reflects a greater percentage of incoming solar radiation than do the dark sandstone and granite. A high proportion of the soil surface is covered by rock fragments, and this tends to impart the reflective characteristics of the parent rock to the soil. ... Average weekly maxima ‘were 2 to 5 C, and average weekly minima 1.5 to 3.0 C, higher on sandstone. The temperature differences persisted at considerable depths.
This difference in soil temperature between substrates is paralleled by a soil moisture difference. Soil moisture content was determined weekly by gravimetric methods at the same two adjacent stations during late summer of 1962. During this period little rain fell. The course of soil moisture at a 20 cm depth in the two soils is plotted in Figure 4. ...

... The data show that the dolomite soil remained consistently wetter than the sandstone soil, even though the two sampling sites were under the same climatic regime. ...

... To determine the effects of reduced soil moisture on the metabolism of bristlecone pine plants, measurements of the rates of photosynthesis and respiration were made in the laboratory as the soil dried out.

Three plants about 15 cm high and 20 to 40 years old were dug from the field in the summer of 1961, established in plastic pots of dolomite soil, ... September of 1962. By this time, new roots had penetrated the soil mass to the sides and bottoms of the pots. Repeated measurements of apparent photosynthesis and respiration were made on these plants in late fall of 1962 as the soil dried.

... Results of these measurements are shown in Figure 7. Photosynthesis was severely depressed at a soil moisture level between 8 and 6%. Since respiration continued without such severe depression, production of photosynthate was curtailed more severely than its consumption. By referring back to Figure 4 it can be seen that at the field site where soil moisture was measured, moisture levels on dolon1ite were below the wilting coefficient on only two dates, ... It seems then that small site differences in soil moisture could cause large differences in productivity in bristlecone pine, and that such small moisture differences do exist between dolomite and sandstone soils in the field.

... Table 2 shows mean climatic values for a ten-year period (1953-1962) at White Mt. 1 (Crooked Creek Laboratory), a cooperative US Weather Bureau station at 10,150 f t in the bristlecone pine zone (Pace, 1963). Annual precipitation has averaged only 12.54 inches for this period of record. Monthly snowfall and rainfall figures reveal the sharp segregation of precipitation in to winter snow and summer snow and rain. Winter snow comprises the bulk of the precipitation total. ...

Mean monthly temperatures are above 50 F only in July and August, showing the effect of high altitude in restricting summer warming. Winter temperatures are not excessively cold; the record low is -21 F. ...

... the open nature of the bristlecone pine “forest,” actually a woodland by many standards.

TABLE 2.-Climatic summary for Crooked Creek Laboratory, 1953-1962 (Pace, 1963)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Ave Snowfallin14.521.512.614.816.82.80.70.01.66.69.611.4
Ave Snow H2Oin1.362.001.091.211.480.220.070.00.150.530.930.98
Ave Rainfallin0.00.00.00.00.130.01.350.630.350.060.00.0
Ave H2O precip.in1.362.001.091.211.600,221.420.630.500.600.930.98

... Climate is that of a desert mountain range, very dry for forest vegetation, but also cool.


Note the only month without snow is August, and the highest rainfall is in July.

When I combine the data in Fig 4 (shows moisture versus time) and Fig 7 (shows respiration and photosynthesis versus moisture), taking the values for moisture at the different time points in fig 4 and plotting those on fig 7 to obtain what the respiration and photosynthesis would be for those times, to match the respiration and photosynthesis to the moisture levels for those 6 measurements made at weekly intervals I get:

From this graph you can see that the ability of the Bristlecone pine growing on dolomite in these conditions is not severely hampered enough to stress the tree sufficiently to form a stress band: the cell size may get smaller, but respiration and photosynthesis proceed, so growth continues.

Note that this would theoretically apply to saplings with root depths of 20 cm (8") or less. The mature trees have much deeper roots and would access water at greater depths.

You don't have the time, you don't have the climate, and you don't have sufficient drought to cause stress rings in the trees

You cannot make this information cause extra rings.

You have not shown that the ecology is so limited that the trees cannot grow for the full season, but I have shown you that it is NOT so limited.

... then we have the problem that the oldest trees on earth, ...

Which we know we don't have because they are ... living ...

Message 41:
  • the "Methuselah" tree, with an estimated germination date of 2832 BCE (wiki)
  • 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)

We also know that the "Prometheus" tree (aka WPN-114) was living when cut down, 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)

And we know there are a lot of other trees, many hundreds of years old, some several thousand years old, in various places.

... White Mountain BCP trees are obviously undergoing a separate annual tree ring growth pattern to the rest of the world.

Another false assertion. This has been falsified by information already provided to you:

LaMarche Jr, V.C. and Harlan, T.P., Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 78 nr 36, 1973, p 8849–8858, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...9/JC078i036p08849/abstract
Message 73

Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale

quote:
Abstract

An independently developed tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine in the White Mountains, California, provides a basis for testing the accuracy of dendrochronological calibration of the radiocarbon time scale. Several lines of evidence show that the growth rings in this species are true annual rings. Internal evidence and cross-chronology comparison indicate that there is no error in calendar dates assigned to wood specimens for comparative radiocarbon analysis, at least back to 3535 B.C.


LaMarche and Harlan obtained samples in 1971 that were cross-matched with White Mountain Bristlecone Pines sampled in 1954 by Schulman. Most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period 1954–1971, a few formed only 17 rings, none formed more than 18 rings. This certainly indicates that the Bristlecone pines did not grow more than one ring per year.

If you don't have access this is what the google search pages (lamarche 18 bristlecone missing ring) says:

quote:
Accuracy of tree ring dating of bristlecone pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale
VC LaMarche Jr, TP Harlan - Journal of Geophysical Research, 1973 - agu.org
... Plotted ring width measurements from sam- ples obtained in 1971 can easily be matched with
Schulman's eries, the indication being that most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period ...
LAMARCHE AND HARLAN: TREE RING DATING ... of the bristlecone pine chronologies ...

They showed that there were NO extra rings in a period covering 18 years, they counted 18 rings in most trees that had been previously sampled, some had 17 rings -- so if anything they proved my point that they are much more likely to have missing rings than extra ones.

In addition it appears that your comments are based on a misreading of the article you cited:

Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/48/20348.full.pdf+html

quote:
Great Basin bristlecone pine (Pinus longaeva) at 3 sites in western North America near the upper elevation limit of tree growth showed ring growth in the second half of the 20th century that was greater than during any other 50-year period in the last 3,700 years. The accelerated growth is suggestive of an environmental change unprecedented in millennia. The high growth is not overestimated because of standardization techniques, and it is unlikely that it is a result of a change in tree growth form or that it is predominantly caused by CO2 fertilization. The growth surge has occurred only in a limited elevational band within Ϸ150 m of upper treeline, regardless of treeline elevation. Both an independent proxy record of temperature and high-elevation meteorological temperature data are positively and significantly correlated with upper-treeline ring width both before and during the high-growth interval. Increasing temperature at high elevations is likely a prominent factor in the modern unprecedented level of growth for Pinus longaeva at these sites.

What they are talking about is that the thickness of the rings is greater than any other 50-year period in the last 3,700 years. This becomes clear if you read the paper, not just the abstract.

More CO2, slightly higher temps, thicker rings. The trees are more temperature sensitive than moisture sensitive.

1) This puts doubt on the annual nature of the white Mountain BCP tree rings because you are not showing recent cross-checks with specifically these old trees.

But it doesn't put doubt -- you just need to read the information provided, and I have shown you the paper that addresses this issue directly and reports on a study of many trees used in the original chronology, they recored them 18 years later, most had 18 new rings since the original coring, some had 17, none had more than 18. If you want more then I suggest you contact the authors directly.

2) This puts doubt on the annual nature of all trees rings in past ages where the White Mountain BCP trees do actually match the rest of the world's tree ring growth patterns during times when weather was more intermittent (mid/early Holocene)

Except that they DO match, as documented in the LaMarche study AND with the documented consilience between the three chronologies in the IntCal papers.

This is you again grabbing at straws and running down rabbit holes.

Because weather patterns were different then, dryness and also monsoons, these weather patterns were more compatible with multiple ring growth as per the White Mountain BCP trees. I have shown you two links showing that weather patterns were different back then compared to today's European weather. This explains the ancient matches. I am still waiting for you to show evidence for the recent White Mountain BCP cross-matching.

No it doesn't explain why the matches are virtually EXACTLY the same for thousands of rings, with only 0.5% error after 7,600 years. Having mysterious magical rings appear in different chronologies at different times cannot make the rest of the chronologies match because you will have offset one to the other.

If you read the article, they were trying to prove that the tunnel wasn't recently produced, because doubters were doubting they had the technology in biblical times to build that tunnel. The carbon dates given were not exact, for example Ur-Th dating gave a date of 400bc for later stalactites in the tunnel, hardly an exact proof of biblical dates. But enough to prove their point that the tunnel was old. ...

And yet the 14C dates matched the time of his reign within the margin of error.

... Of course carbon dating will prove their point because carbon dating overestimates the dates increasingly from about 2000bp and so would produce an older date.

I'm not claiming a factor of 11-12 immediately after the year 2000, its the incorrect calibration during the 2000-4000BC period that creates an increasingly larger carbon dating problem especially in the 12 000-60 000 bp range. In my own view, 2000bp to 2700bp will still have carbon dates in the same "ballpark" just as you are confirming. As we get closer to 3000bp the discrepancies become emphasized until they are way out by 4000bp.

Which of course is BS, blind assertion and nonsense. It is interesting that you have dropped the 11-12 argument, but the rest of that is just blather.

You are introducing new arguments here before we have completed or summarized our current discussions. I prefer Rohl's revised chronology which reveals large discrepancies in the mainstream Egyptian chronology. If you correct all the mainstream chronologies in favor of more logical chronologies in each case, we get a more logical consilience in accordance with the much stronger magnetic field in early history. ie the 10% adjustment to carbon dates is illogical compared to the 50% change in magnetic field strength in mainstream chronology. If we calibrate the timeframes according to the corrected history, we compress the timeframes, and then the carbon ratios align better with the magnetic field changes

4125Bp is your date. Rohl's chronology compresses recent history after he showed evidence that two Egyptian king lists were concurrent rather than consecutive. Regarding dendrochronology you need to align recent White Mountain BCP trees with recent European chronology to make your point.

What you prefer is immaterial, what the evidence shows in in agreement with Shaw and from what you say it invalidates your pet chronology.

And if you are going to introduce rabbit hole after rabbit hole, you have no complaint to my providing more and more information that shows your initial premises are false.

Yes you have the monsoon season, but trees in monsoon areas often have multiple rings. http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/...dicals/earthmatters/13/EMv13n1.pdf

Multiple rings that are easy to identify when you known what you are doing.

quote:
Sequence of four Douglas-fir tree rings from southwestern New Mexico, for the four-year period from 1871 to 1874. Each annual growth ring is composed of light-colored earlywood (EW) and dark-colored latewood (LW). Both 1871 and 1872 contain density variations—“false rings”—which likely result from seasonal drought in the pre-monsoon period.

They identified the extra rings, and did not confuse them with annual rings as you keep asserting/thinking happens.

Your big problem is still the consilience of these dendrochronologies with each other and with historical events -- they match historical events precisely and accurately and they match each other ring for ring for over 8 thousand years with 99.5% accuracy and precision.

Nit picking each chronology, inventing extra rings here and there doesn't explain the matches.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : add

Edited by RAZD, : img size


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 78 by mindspawn, posted 12-01-2013 1:45 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by mindspawn, posted 12-03-2013 9:05 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 81 of 119 (712281)
12-02-2013 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by mindspawn
12-01-2013 3:14 PM


Re: Dendrochronology Basics
WOW! I have asked you repeatedly to show me proof of recent cross-checking with WHITE MOUNTAIN Bristlecone Pine trees and you answer with a link about Colorado Bristlecone Pine Trees. Unfortunately this failure of yours so far is ruining your argument. You may not understand why but your failure to focus on the White Mountain 1816 drought tree rings ruins your objection to multiple annual rings on the White Mountain BCP trees, and ruins your argument that other trees do not have multiple rings when they undergo dryer weather conditions like the White Mountains.

No, your failure to understand that the Bristlecone pine chronology includes more than just the white mountain pines -- it includes other areas.

You wanted evidence of 1816 and you got it. I said it was in the Bristlecone pine tree rings and it is. That it is not documented in a tree or grove you decide to question is you grabbing at straws and running down rabbit holes.

OF course the Colorado trees would cross-check with European trees that have wetter weather, I agree on the annual nature of the Colorado tree rings as per your link:

Then you have a problem, as those trees are also part of the Bristlecone pine chronology program. You are dealing with the same dendrochronologist -- LaMarche -- in both areas.

Despite many many posts, and numerous copy and pastes I feel this argument is making no progress due to you failing to actually discuss my objections. You are flooding the thread with a lot of irrelevant links and posts.

What I am 'flooding' you with is additional information that substantiates and supports my argument.

No I am not going to follow your rabbit holes in ever tightening circles.

You don't like 1816 then look at 536, you don't like 536 then look at 44BCE. But you also need to explain why all three are correlated with the dendrochronologies and why all three chronologies are consilient. If data matches from different sources then we can have high confidence that they are both reporting real effects ... in this case real calendar age.

More statements without evidence. I asked for your evidence that dolomite will retain moisture throughout summer and this is your reply? Not convincing at all. Wood does not grow when the water supply runs out, the onus is on you to show me that the tree or the soil retains enough moisture to grow when there is absolutely no water supply.

Which I HAVE supplied. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it disappear.

See post above Message 80

quote:
... Table 2 shows mean climatic values for a ten-year period (1953-1962) at White Mt. 1 (Crooked Creek Laboratory), a cooperative US Weather Bureau station at 10,150 f t in the bristlecone pine zone (Pace, 1963). Annual precipitation has averaged only 12.54 inches for this period of record. Monthly snowfall and rainfall figures reveal the sharp segregation of precipitation in to winter snow and summer snow and rain. Winter snow comprises the bulk of the precipitation total. ...

Mean monthly temperatures are above 50 F only in July and August, showing the effect of high altitude in restricting summer warming. Winter temperatures are not excessively cold; the record low is -21 F. ...

... the open nature of the bristlecone pine “forest,” actually a woodland by many standards.

TABLE 2.-Climatic summary for Crooked Creek Laboratory, 1953-1962 (Pace, 1963)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDec
Ave Snowfallin14.521.512.614.816.82.80.70.01.66.69.611.4
Ave Snow H2Oin1.362.001.091.211.480.220.070.00.150.530.930.98
Ave Rainfallin0.00.00.00.00.130.01.350.630.350.060.00.0
Ave H2O precip.in1.362.001.091.211.600,221.420.630.500.600.930.98

... Climate is that of a desert mountain range, very dry for forest vegetation, but also cool.


Note the only month without snow is August, and the highest rainfall is in July.

When I combine the data in Fig 4 and Fig 7 to match the respiration and photosynthesis to the moisture level for those 6 measurements made at weekly intervals I get:

From this graph you can see that the ability of the Bristlecone pine in these conditions is not severe enough to stress the tree sufficiently to form a stress band: the cell size may get smaller, but respiration and photosynthesis proceed, so growth continues.

You don't have the time, you don't have the climate, and you don't have sufficient drought to cause stress rings in the trees

And you can see from the table that other years would be similar. This would be typical for the trees growing near the tree line on dolomite.

Average precipitation per month? per rainfall? Which chart are you referring to you,

The one showing rainfall further east of the tree locations, so it would still be in the rain shadow.

It is obviously quite different from yours which were on the wet side of the mountains.

You now have a table for a ten-year period (1953-1962) at White Mt. 1 (Crooked Creek Laboratory), -- that is right in the area where the trees grow, and it confirms what I said before.

I'm referring to the White Mountain Bristlecone Pines, the alleged oldest trees on earth. These trees are unique compared to say Colorado Bristlecone Pines that have more moisture. Which known date is tied into the White Mountain Bristlecone Pines? Please provide evidence or stop claiming that these trees are so old. (you really need to support your claims, dolomite soil is your only argument so far, your weather claims support my position). Your short summer growing season argument ruined your spring melt growing season argument, and so your own dissonance is starting to agree with my position. (a growing season of tiny intermittent summer rainfalls has been my claim all along, you seem to now agree with me and seem to have abandoned your once off spring melt argument)Glad you think that -- some progress maybe.

Boy you are getting desperate grabbin at those rabbit holes. Spring is relative, coming late (July) at high altitudes, summer is short, and fall is early (September).

Why should I stop claiming the age of these trees when the evidence is obvious and you have provided no rational reason to think they are not that old.

Not only are they well documented and well studied and compared to the other chronologies, but the Bristlecone pine chronology is composed of many other Bristlecone pines, including ones from Colorado, that also agree with them.

Ancient cross-matching supports my position IF you are unable to prove recent cross-matching.

Which I have.

Regarding your proof of storage of water, as you quoted:
http://canopy.evergreen.edu/...ntent/Citations/Citation.aspx
"Whole tree transpiration can be maintained with stored water for about a week, but it can be maintained with stored water from the upper crown alone for no more than a few hours."
Just one week of storage... this supports my argument.

You need proof of this storage. Maybe they have adapted by using up the moisture more rapidly and then going dormant. You need to present your evidence how BCP trees store water more than other trees, maybe they survive because they do not store, but more easily survive dormancy between growth.

Which only applies when there is complete absence of water ... which is not the case ... And different trees have different responses.

And the trees still grow on the dolomite through the whole growing season without and drought stress because they are still able to draw water from the dolomite. This diagram shows respiration and photosynthesis occurring while the water drops, and it shows the water dropping but not stopping.

Once again I asked you for evidence. I'm getting nothing except a fictional diagram. I wish dendrochronology was so accurate, but frankly it is not. Rohl an Egyptologist points out on page 489 of his book "A test of time" that the SAME tree can cross match 3 times with another sequence with a match within the range of acceptability to dendrochronologists. (incorrect matching sequences can have a higher match value than accepted matched sequences - t-values of 4 or 5)

Another shyster?

http://plagueofmice.anarchic-teapot.net/...il-a-test-of-time

You can always tell when something like this is made up and not fact when phrases like "acceptable to dendrochronologists" are not substantiated by actually quoting and actual dendrochronologist saying it nor identifying who was used to make such a claim.

Obviously that is why your Rohl is also wrong about the age of the tombs - he must love making stuff up for you. Hope you didn't buy the book new or paid full price for it.

Your big problem is still the consilience of these dendrochronologies with each other and with historical events -- they match historical events precisely and accurately and they match each other ring for ring for over 8 thousand years with 99.5% accuracy and precision.

Nit picking each chronology, inventing extra rings here and there doesn't explain the matches.

Consilience proves you wrong.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : image size


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 79 by mindspawn, posted 12-01-2013 3:14 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 82 of 119 (712292)
12-02-2013 8:55 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by mindspawn
12-01-2013 3:14 PM


Summary of Dendrochronology Basics and Bristlecone pine Specifics
You have asked for confirmation of 1816 CE impact on Bristlecone pine and I showed you where LaMarche had found frost rings in Bristlecone pines, and I showed you that there were matching narrow rings in the oaks. Now you ask for evidence in one subset of the Bristlecone pine and I suppose next you'll ask for the evidence in one specific tree.

You haven't commented on the evidence in 536 CE and 44 BCE that also shows up in the tree rings in the Bristlecone pine and Irish oak chronologies.

You have argued that the consilience between organic artifacts and Egyptian history at 2660+/-40 BCE, is because both are wrong by identical amounts.

You argued that the climate in three different locations matched by some mysterious miracle and I showed you records of climate differences that did not affect the annual ring production.

You have argued that climate was different in the past and that this cause chronology problems with false rings mistaken for annual rings, and I showed you the tree chronology actually documents the weather patterns involved because they are accurate in time as well as indicators of climate.

You have argued that all chronologies were water sensitive at different times but magically match to each other, that they bunch up and stretch out like inch-worms or slinkies ...

You have argued that the consilience between Bristlecone pine and the oak chronologies is because both are wrong at different times yet still miraculously match to 99.5% accuracy because dendrochronologists make rampant mistakes, are incompetent at identifying false rings, and just fumble along blindly.

You have argued that Bristlecone pines have been growing rampant extra rings in recent years (due likely to misreading a paper on the growth of thicker rings due to CO2 and I have shown you a document that recent cores taken 18 years after a previous set of cores on the same trees had 18 recent rings in most of the samples, with some having 17 rings, showing that there were no extra rings and that missing rings are somewhat common (as I have argued).

You have argued that Colorado Bristlecone pines are different from White Mountain Bristlecone pines, but the dendrochronologist that found the frost rings for 1816 is the same one that recored the original trees and demonstrated the accurate and precise recent growth.

You have argued that the climate at the upper ranges causes multiple stress rings that are mistaken for annual rings, and I have shown you that the growing season is too short for this, that the dolomite buffers the trees against the few short dry spells by storing water, that most of the water is available as snow melt and I've shown you a table of actual data taken over a 10 year period from a meteorological station within the Bristlecone growing area:

Let me add a column for totals to that table just to show you that what I have argued is based on fact:

TABLE 2.-Climatic summary for Crooked Creek Laboratory, 1953-1962 (Pace, 1963)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecTotals
Ave Snowfallin14.521.512.614.816.82.80.70.01.66.69.611.4103.5
Ave Snow H2Oin1.362.001.091.211.480.220.070.00.150.530.930.9810.02
Ave Rainfallin0.00.00.00.00.130.01.350.630.350.060.00.02.52
Ave H2O precip.in1.362.001.091.211.600.221.420.630.500.600.930.9812.54

Oh snap! that's 12.5" of water average for 10 years with 10" as snow -- that's 80% as snow ... Note that spring in the mountains would be in July and this would be when the snow melts, and that this is the month with the greatest rainfall ... about 1/2 of the total rainfall occurs in July ... so you have a wet spring with ~90% of the available water in July, followed by a dry month of summer with an occasional light rain in August before the snows start again in September.

I have shown you a combination of actual measurements of soil moisture, respiration and photosynthesis combined into one graph (taking respiration and photosynthesis values from Fig 7 for the moisture levels shown in Fig 4) to demonstrate how the dolomite storage of water would enable the Bristlecone pine to grow through this high elevation short growing season, from late spring snow melt in July to early fall snowfall in September and short summer:

This shows 5 weeks at the center of the growing season and that the growth continues for the whole period. Taking the values for July 30, 1962 as 100% of typical normal moisture, (based on the table of weather data with July being the wettest month), 100% of typical normal respiration and 100% of typical normal photosynthesis levels we get:

MoistureRespirationPhotosynthesis
07/30/62100%100%100%
08/06/6277%86%95%
08/13/6262%75%85%
08/20/6250%68%72%
08/27/6274%86%95%
09/03/6251%71%73%

These values are approximations from reading off the graphs in Fig 4 and Fig 7. None of these values are below 50% of spring growth.

Cell growth would only stop for winter, when the water supply is frozen, thus making distinctive annual rings. This would theoretically apply to saplings with root depths of 20 cm (8") or less -- the mature trees have much deeper roots and would access water at greater depths.

Have I missed anything?

There comes a time when you need to stop spinning your wheels and move forward. The tree ring chronologies are accurate and precise, they all are counted on annual rings, they all match for climate variations and historical markers, and they show that the earth is older than 12,473 years as of 2013 CE (12,410 BP - before 1950 - or 10,460 BCE).

When we come to 14C decay and age dating we can return to the dendrochronologies ... because each one has had measurements of the 14C/12C levels and - surprise - they are also consilient and match ring for ring with 99.5% accuracy and precision, including the wiggles in the 14C/12C values that are due to periodic cycles like sunspot activity -- something that would not occur with your inch-worm/slinkie scenario.

It is time to move forward and look at Lake Suigetsu varves, starting with their consilience with the dendrochronologies.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : sp

Edited by RAZD, : add

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : ...

Edited by RAZD, : add

Edited by RAZD, : added table

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by mindspawn, posted 12-01-2013 3:14 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(1)
Message 83 of 119 (712327)
12-02-2013 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by mindspawn
12-01-2013 3:14 PM


Unanswered posts to date
Not that I am complaining ... I just want to point out posts you have not answered in case you missed them:


  1. Hello mindspawn - let's start with some defs and give me your best shot? Message 20 -- no answer required
  2. The Tip of the Iceberg Message 24 -- Ice cores intro
  3. Re: Dry Lakes and Rabbit Holes and Rational Conclusions and Cognitive Dissonance Message 38 -- consilience between dendro and U/Th data, historical dates, Cariaco Basin consilience
  4. Re: Lake Suigetsu varves Message 45 -- old and new data integration, repeated in Message 77
  5. Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration Message 50 -- no answer required
  6. Bristlecone Pines Message 52 -- compilation of information, now updated with new information
  7. German Oak and Pine Message 55 -- rehash of argument
  8. Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration Message 70 -- historical cross dating and temp sensitive not water
  9. Re: happy thanksgiving Message 72 -- no answer required
  10. Tree Ring Accuracy and Precision Message 73 -- climate info, accuracy etc
  11. Lake and Marine Varve Basics Message 74 -- into info
  12. Re: Uranium and Thorium Message 76 -- very small variation in some decay rates, no effect on half-life
  13. Lake Suigetsu varves ... revisited Message 77 -- updated information, new cores
  14. Re: Mysterious Magical Weather Stress Rings Message 80 -- actual Bristlecone pine climate information
  15. Re: Dendrochronology Basics Message 81 -- reiterated information that has been ignored or misrepresented
  16. Summary of Dendrochronology Basics and Bristlecone pine Specifics Message 82 -- summary of your failed arguments on dendrochronology and why they fail

You might want to read through them all before answering as some of it is repetitive.

Now you have a lot on your plate, and I can wait for you to catch up, particularly if you take the time to compile your replies and group them according to topic,

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : add


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 79 by mindspawn, posted 12-01-2013 3:14 PM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Adminnemooseus, posted 12-02-2013 8:39 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply
 Message 92 by mindspawn, posted 12-09-2013 5:51 AM RAZD has responded

  
Adminnemooseus
Director
Posts: 3794
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 3.6


(1)
Message 84 of 119 (712328)
12-02-2013 8:39 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by RAZD
12-02-2013 7:26 PM


The RAZD gallop???
You know, maybe it's time for you to take at least a week off from posting at this topic.

You've just posted 3 massive messages as a reply to 1 Mindspawn message. Isn't this something along the lines of a "RAZD gallop"?

Any replies to this message should go to the peanut gallery topic.

Adminnemooseus


Or something like that©.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 7:26 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

    
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 85 of 119 (712346)
12-03-2013 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
11-25-2013 8:40 AM


Re: Lake Suigetsu varves
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.

Stating this does not make it so. The varves in question are very tiny, hardly detectable layers of a few mm each. You need more evidence before you state that the varves are too thick to form quickly.

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

You already acknowledged that there are 25 regular spring tides a year so I don't need to prove this. Owing to Lake Suigetsu's unique location next to the sea, it is inevitable that the salt water table would rise during spring tides, I have already posted evidence that is what occurs at all coastal regions. Freshwater diatoms die when exposed to salt water, this is a fact.

The applicable spring tides would be those that overlap the diatom bloom, which normally occur in spring/summer, so the very nature of all the evidence put forward, is that there is regular silting interrupted by regular spring tide die-offs during the diatom bloom. All the evidence has already been put forward, if you doubt any of these facts I will present the evidence again that diatoms bloom seasonally (not the whole year) , that spring tides affect the water table with salt water, that salt water kills freshwater diatoms, that Lake Suigetsu is located in the type of close proximity to the sea which is always affected by the sea's salt water table. You have presented the evidence that the silting is regular and not intermittent, that fact also contributes towards my argument that diatom die-offs would interrupt the regular silting of the lake whenever the bloom experiences a spring tide. This would result in layered density of diatom remains in the silt.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2013 8:40 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2013 12:56 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 99 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 86 of 119 (712354)
12-03-2013 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
12-02-2013 12:39 AM


Re: Mysterious Magical Weather Stress Rings
Your argument is rather hard to follow when you make ad hoc assertions as you go, grabbing at straws and going down rabbit holes.

I'm doing no such thing. I am asking you to prove that White Mountain Bristlecone pines are really as old as you claim and I have no hidden agendas:

a) You can do so by showing me that their chronology recently co-incides with actual historical events (1816). You have not done so.
b) You can do so by proving to me that they continually grow throughout the growing season through retaining moisture, or through the soil retaining moisture. Your answers have been grasping at straws with no definite facts.

Without that evidence (1816) shown in well studied trees, we have the likelihood that certain weather patterns can create multiple rings. This likelihood can apply to other regions as well during differing ancient weather patterns.

This is not an ad hoc argument, but has been my argument all along. I wonder why you have not yet presented your evidence of 1816 in White Mountain trees yet, your failure to do so speaks volumes. You keep saying you have presented your evidence, yet your evidence shows a loose consilience thousands of years ago with no recent consilience at all. Your evidence shows a recent consilience with Colorado trees, which is irrelevant to white Mountain trees.

But not one without sufficient water to grow, slowly, during each 6 to 12 week growing period, mostly on snow melt.

Make up your mind, is it a 6 to 8 week summer growing season ... or a spring melt growing season?

Results of these measurements are shown in Figure 7. Photosynthesis was severely depressed at a soil moisture level between 8 and 6%. Since respiration continued without such severe depression, production of photosynthate was curtailed more severely than its consumption. By referring back to Figure 4 it can be seen that at the field site where soil moisture was measured, moisture levels on dolon1ite were below the wilting coefficient on only two dates, ... It seems then that small site differences in soil moisture could cause large differences in productivity in bristlecone pine, and that such small moisture differences do exist between dolomite and sandstone soils in the field.

Once again your evidence supports my position. The evidence presented shows that Bristlecone Pine trees require dolomite soil in those dry conditions because it preserves moisture, but even the dolomite soil was "below the wilting coefficient on only two dates". ie in late summer of 1962 over just 5 weeks, in the growing season, even the dolomite soil had insufficient water to support growth on two separate occasions.
Wilting coefficient is "the level of soil moisture at which water becomes unavailable to plants and permanent wilting ensue"

Point made! Thanks for the info.

You have not shown that the ecology is so limited that the trees cannot grow for the full season, but I have shown you that it is NOT so limited.

You have shown me that the trees do not have enough moisture to grow continuously.

Note the only month without snow is August, and the highest rainfall is in July.

When I combine the data in Fig 4 (shows moisture versus time) and Fig 7 (shows respiration and photosynthesis versus moisture), taking the values for moisture at the different time points in fig 4 and plotting those on fig 7 to obtain what the respiration and photosynthesis would be for those times, to match the respiration and photosynthesis to the moisture levels for those 6 measurements made at weekly intervals I get:

Figure 4 shows that moisture went below 6.4% on two occasions, EVEN IN THE DOLOMITE SOIL.
You article states "Photosynthesis was SEVERELY DEPRESSED at a soil moisture level between 8 and 6%"
This means that merely in the late summer, these Bristlecone pines although they continued to RESPIRATE (breathe) went through 2 periods of SEVERE DEPRESSION in photosynthesis in the dolomite soil.

What your graph does not show is that the dips represent depressed photosynthesis on two occasions in only 5 weeks of 1962 that are so depressed as to be below the level at which moisture is available to plants, and permanent wilting ensues.

We also know that the "Prometheus" tree (aka WPN-114) was living when cut down, 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)

And we know there are a lot of other trees, many hundreds of years old, some several thousand years old, in various places.

RAZD you first have to provide evidence that those are annual rings to make claims about the age of these trees. All your evidence is starting to sound increasingly hollow, your evidence is actually supporting my view. Once you have put forward a strong case for annual rings, then it would be mature to use the accepted dates for these trees, until then its premature to use these dates as any form of factual support for your position that they are actually that old.

Another false assertion. This has been falsified by information already provided to you:

LaMarche Jr, V.C. and Harlan, T.P., Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 78 nr 36, 1973, p 8849–8858, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...9/JC078i036p08849/abstract
Message 73

Your link uses carbon dating to date those trees up to 3535 BC. (circular reasoning) I was kinda hoping you would show 1816 in the White Mountain tree rings. Message 73 does not focus on BCP Trees in the White Mountains and their recent chronology.


LaMarche and Harlan obtained samples in 1971 that were cross-matched with White Mountain Bristlecone Pines sampled in 1954 by Schulman. Most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period 1954–1971, a few formed only 17 rings, none formed more than 18 rings. This certainly indicates that the Bristlecone pines did not grow more than one ring per year.

Quote:
Accuracy of tree ring dating of bristlecone pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale
VC LaMarche Jr, TP Harlan - Journal of Geophysical Research, 1973 - agu.org
... Plotted ring width measurements from samples obtained in 1971 can easily be matched with
Schulman's eries, the indication being that most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period ...
LAMARCHE AND HARLAN: TREE RING DATING ... of the bristlecone pine chronologies ...

I found this very interesting. Can you give me a link please?

No it doesn't explain why the matches are virtually EXACTLY the same for thousands of rings, with only 0.5% error after 7,600 years. Having mysterious magical rings appear in different chronologies at different times cannot make the rest of the chronologies match because you will have offset one to the other.

Its not so precise:

Problems with Dendrochronology
Excerpt from Online Essay
Sean Pitman

www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html

Papers by Keenan are attached as PDF files

Consider a 1986 paper written by D. K. Yamaguchi.1 In this paper Yamaguchi recognized that tree rings tend to "auto correlate" or actually cross-match with each other in several places within a tree-ring sequence. What he did to prove this was quite interesting. He took a 290-ring Douglas-fir log known, by historical methods, to date between AD 1482 and 1668 and demonstrated that it could cross-match in multiple places with the Pacific Northwest Douglas Fir Master Growth-ring Sequence to give very good t-values. A t-value is given to a wiggle-match on the basis of a statistical analysis of the correspondence between two wood samples. This statistical assessment is done by computer, which assigns high t-values (3 and above) to good wiggle-matches and low t-values (below 3) to those with poor correspondence between the ring patterns. Amazingly, using such t-value analysis, Yamaguchi found 113 different matches having a confidence level of greater than 99.9%. For example, Yamaguchi demonstrated that his log could cross-match with other tree-ring sequences to give t-values of around 5 at AD 1504 (for the low end of the ring age), 7 at AD 1647 and 4.5 at AD 1763. Six of these matches were non-overlapping.1 That means that this particular piece of wood could be dated to be any one of those six vastly different ages to within a 99.9% degree of confidence.
It is therefore interesting to note that a number of the crucial dendrochronology sequences, such as the Garry Bog 2 (GB2) and Southwark sequences, which connect the Belfast absolute chronology (i.e. the AD sequence) to the 'floating' Belfast long chronology (i.e. the BC sequence), and ultimately used to re-date the South German chronology, have t-values of around 4. These t-values are considerably lower than those obtained for some of the historically incorrect dates produced by Yamaguchi's experiment. Thus, one would be justified in asking if the crucial cross-links, which connect up the floating sequences of the Belfast and German chronologies are based on incorrect wiggle-matches - having resulted from the phenomenon of auto-correlation

They identified the extra rings, and did not confuse them with annual rings as you keep asserting/thinking happens.

Your big problem is still the consilience of these dendrochronologies with each other and with historical events -- they match historical events precisely and accurately and they match each other ring for ring for over 8 thousand years with 99.5% accuracy and precision.

Nit picking each chronology, inventing extra rings here and there doesn't explain the matches.

The consilience is from the premature acceptance of carbon dates, which are out by the same factor as Th-Ur dating (the difference is about 10% due to carbon production changing during the strong magnetic field).

Floating tree ring chronologies are tied in with other chronologies using low T-values (4-6) instead of high T-values (1-3) based on approximate carbon dating of the floating tree sequence.

.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 12:39 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2013 5:49 PM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2013 8:56 AM mindspawn has not yet responded
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2013 7:01 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 87 of 119 (712409)
12-03-2013 12:56 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by mindspawn
12-03-2013 7:29 AM


Re: Lake Suigetsu varves -- annual, annual, annual
... The varves in question are very tiny, hardly detectable layers of a few mm each. You need more evidence before you state that the varves are too thick to form quickly.

Not the point -- the clay layers only form independent of the diatom layers when there has been months without diatom deposition.

The applicable spring tides would be those that overlap the diatom bloom, which normally occur in spring/summer, so the very nature of all the evidence put forward, is that there is regular silting interrupted by regular spring tide die-offs during the diatom bloom. All the evidence has already been put forward, if you doubt any of these facts I will present the evidence again that diatoms bloom seasonally (not the whole year) , that spring tides affect the water table with salt water, that salt water kills freshwater diatoms, that Lake Suigetsu is located in the type of close proximity to the sea which is always affected by the sea's salt water table. You have presented the evidence that the silting is regular and not intermittent, that fact also contributes towards my argument that diatom die-offs would interrupt the regular silting of the lake whenever the bloom experiences a spring tide. This would result in layered density of diatom remains in the silt.

Let's put this to bed.

Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology

quote:
... To avoid the problem of false layers produced in many places by floods or inconsistent seasonality a location that is protected and exhibits a strong season signal is best. Lake Suigetsu fits those requirements. For example, the Hasu River enters Lake Mikata where the sediments suspended in the river, even during a large flood, will fall out. Water then flows through a narrow but shallow channel into Lake Suigetsu which is surrounded by high cliffs on all sides and has almost no input of water from the surrounding area save a very few very small creeks. The result of this is that the waters of Lake Suigetsu have very little suspended sediment and the surrounding walls limit the wind on its surface so the waters are not disrupted. Thus the center of the lake is extremely stable and unlikely to be disturbed by floods, large storms, etc… Input to the sediment on the bottom mostly comes from material falling into the lake from the air (leaves, pollen, volcanic ash, dust) or from differential growth of organisms (algae) over the year. What is amazing about most of the varves of Lake Suigetsu is that even microscopically the varves formed 1000 years ago look the same as those formed 40,000 years ago. ...

There is strong seasonality in this region with summer and winter monsoons. The high precipitation in the winter along with cold/freezing water and decaying plant material and algae results in deposition of both different organics (eg. pollen in spring vs lack of pollen in winter) in summer vs winter but higher sediments during the winter. ...

Consider also that there are more than 30 visible ash layers which form discrete almost pure glass crystal layers that lie between varve layers. These would have formed from airborne ash from volcanoes in the area. That ash would have fallen directly into the lake and settle quickly to the bottom. Had this ash been brought in by the river it would have been mixed with other sediments. These ash layers attest to the fact that this lake had very clear undisturbed waters during the whole period that these varves formed. In addition to the 30 visible layers there are at least 100 additional ash deposits that are so fine that they can only be identified by microscope. These would represent ash from very distant or small volcanic explosions that brought a very small amount of ash fallout to the lake. The advantage of these ash deposits is that some of them can also be radiometrically dated and those dates compared to the varve/layer counts. When this is done an ash layer found at varve count 9000 is found to have a radiometric date of around 9000 years. This represents yet another independent verification that both the varve counts accurately reflect the passage of time in the forms of annual layers.


Again we see volcano dating validating the varve layers, again we see that there is a strong seasonal signal and that even multiple blooms would make a single diatom layer.

Varve Counting

quote:
Of paramount importance to the significance of the Lake Suigetsu sediments is the presence throughout much of the sedimentary profile of annually deposited laminae, or "varves". These varves provide a high resolution, independent age scale against which palaeoenvironmental data (including the radiocarbon dataset) can be directly compared. Counting of the Lake Suigetsu varves is being carried out by combining two complementary methods: those of thin section microscopy (at the GeoForschungsZentrum, Potsdam) and high-resolution X-ray fluorescence and X-radiography (at the Institute of Geography and Earth Sciences, Aberystwyth University).

The varves are composed of alternating layers of diatom-rich sediment and Mn-enriched siderite [(Fe,Mn)CO3] deposited predominantly after lake overturn in autumn. The siderite layers are distinct both optically, when viewed in thin section, and geochemically, as high density peaks in Fe and Mn. A multi-parameter approach is being employed for geochemical counting using high resolution XRF and X-radiographic measurements with the PeakCounter software, which was specifically developed for this project.


Two different layers with different characteristics that occur on an annual basis. No Cl or Na in the sediment layer.

Pollen

quote:
Through characterisation of fossil pollen grain assemblages down a sediment profile, changes through time in the local vegetation to a site can be reliably reconstructed. In this way, pollen provides an excellent record of the response of vegetation to changing palaeoenvironment.

... previous project demonstrated the technique's ability to reconstruct high resolution climate changes from the site over the Late Glacial to early Holocene time period (Nakagawa et al. 2003, 2005, 2006). Quantified climate indices were inferred using fossil pollen data and the established modern analogue method (Nakagawa et al. 2002). A notable strength of this approach is that it allows reconstruction of seasonal (summer and winter) temperature and precipitation separately. ...


Pollen doesn't fall in winter. Another indicator that they are annual varves.

The lake level is currently near ocean level, but would have been higher in the past with lower sea levels. These lower levels are well known, and have occurred within the time of the varve formation. At the time of the link to the German oak and pine chronology the level would have been below that of Lake Suigetsu.

Next, IF any sea water HAD intruded into the lake the composition of the clay layer would be altered chemically.

Settling Rates of Clay in Salt Water

quote:
Solving the problem of settling rate of clay is more complicated than with other particles, because the structure of clay particles causes the clay to interact in a physical and electrodynamic way. Clay particles have a flat sheet-like shape, where their face is negatively charged and their edges are positively charged. Clay groups together into clumps of particles, called 'flocs', this process is called 'flocculation'. Flocs settle faster than clay particles alone.

In fresh-water the structure of the clay particles forces them to flocculate by stacking like a house of cards, face to edge. When salt is added the positive sodium ions in the saline solution attach to the clay particles and, the clay flocculates more easily.


Salt water acts as a flocculant for clay colloids, making large clumps that settle fast, and that have chemical differences from the non-flocculated clay. This would, of course, include Sodium, Na, in the clumps, which was not detected ...

This process would cause fast deposition of a very thick layer of clay, which is not observed, another indication that no such influx occurred.

In addition, salt water is heavier than fresh water (specific gravity 1.03) so it would stay at the bottom of this lake -- if it did intrude ...

Diatoms

quote:
Diatoms (algae, Division Bacillariophyta) are unicellular, eukaryotic organisms characterised by their siliceous cells, each consisting of two intricately patterned 'thecae'. Diatoms occur throughout the world, growing in almost all aquatic environments. They are highly sensitive to a broad range of environmental factors (including water depth, water quality, temperature and salinity), however, with different taxa capable of tolerating different ranges of these environmental conditions.

The annually laminated (varved) Lake Suigetsu sediment profile is extremely rich in diatoms, and thus lends itself to high-resolution diatom analysis and diatom-based environmental reconstructions. ...


So IF any sea water HAD intruded into the lake you would have diatom die-off AND big clumps of flocculated clay in the same layer, a different profile than what is observed.

In other words, they would KNOW if this had happened, and there is no evidence that it did happen.

This argument is dead.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : link

Edited by RAZD, : ..


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by mindspawn, posted 12-03-2013 7:29 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


(2)
Message 88 of 119 (712440)
12-03-2013 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by mindspawn
12-03-2013 9:05 AM


Re: Mysterious Magical Weather Stress Rings
I'm doing no such thing. I am asking you to prove that White Mountain Bristlecone pines are really as old as you claim and I have no hidden agendas:

You are grasping at straws. Your following statements demonstrate this.

a) You can do so by showing me that their chronology recently co-incides with actual historical events (1816). You have not done so.

I have. 1816 CE, 536 CE, 44 BCE 2660 BCE ...

Please note that I originally said that there was evidence of 1816 in Bristlecone pines -- and I showed you that information.

You asking for validation in another clump of trees is (a) ignoring the evidence, (b) grabbing at straws, and (c) running down rabbit holes.

The trees studied by LaMarche are part of the Bristlecone pine chronology, something he actually worked on. He found frost rings for 1816 in many trees -- enough to show that the climate was significantly colder that year, as documented in history.

That is evidence of 1816 in Bristlecone pines.

b) You can do so by proving to me that they continually grow throughout the growing season through retaining moisture, or through the soil retaining moisture. Your answers have been grasping at straws with no definite facts.

I have provided you with sufficient information that shows how the dolomite enables growth, even for saplings, in weather typical on a 10 year record.

In addition I have noted a study by LaMarche -- again -- where he recored many trees that were included in the original chronology, 18 years after the original cores. He found 18 rings in most trees, 17 rings in some and no trees with extra rings.

These trees with the 18 and 17 rings also demonstrate without a doubt that the trees were able to survive every year of that 18 year period.

If anything there was an indication that the weather is occasionally too harsh to grow a full ring and so they find missing rings, not extra rings.

Without that evidence (1816) shown in well studied trees, we have the likelihood that certain weather patterns can create multiple rings. This likelihood can apply to other regions as well during differing ancient weather patterns.

Or we could have cows flying to the moon.

You have absolutely zero evidence of Bristlecone pines growing extra rings in these high altitude environment. The only "evidence" you have is a known shyster forcing a second growth period and then claiming he found extra annual rings ... in San Fransisco ...

This is not an ad hoc argument, but has been my argument all along. ...

Ad hoc means made up. You have no evidence, you made it up, it is wrong.

... I wonder why you have not yet presented your evidence of 1816 in White Mountain trees yet, your failure to do so speaks volumes. You keep saying you have presented your evidence, ...

You keep rejecting it. The evidence is there. Rabbit holes.

... yet your evidence shows a loose consilience thousands of years ago with no recent consilience at all. Your evidence shows a recent consilience with Colorado trees, which is irrelevant to white Mountain trees.

All three dendrochronologies match ring for ring from their latest date, anchored in known tree ring recorded from trees at absolutely known dates. They are consilient within 100% for thousands of years of absolute agreement. They are consilient within 99.5% to 7600 BP.

This would not be the case if what you said were true.

It seems you don't understand what consilience means. 100% accuracy and precision means that each ring for the first two thousand years agrees with those same rings in the other chronologies -- every one -- for the changes in climate measured by band width. It means that the same pattern of agreement occurs to 7600BP with an error of only 0.5%.

Every ring in each chronology, which are composed of many trees that also agree with one another.

This consilience means that (a) they are annual rings, and (b) there has been no local disturbance that has affected one chronology without affecting the others.

They are all absolute chronologies.

Make up your mind, is it a 6 to 8 week summer growing season ... or a spring melt growing season?

You are the only one saying 6 to 8 ... the weather pattern is very clear from the 10 year record taken in the Bristlecone pine forest ...

quote:
... Table 2 shows mean climatic values for a ten-year period (1953-1962) at White Mt. 1 (Crooked Creek Laboratory), a cooperative US Weather Bureau station at 10,150 f t in the bristlecone pine zone (Pace, 1963).

TABLE 2.-Climatic summary for Crooked Creek Laboratory, 1953-1962 (Pace, 1963)
JanFebMarAprMayJunJulAugSepOctNovDecTotals(*)
Ave Snowfallin14.521.512.614.816.82.80.70.01.66.69.611.4103.5
Ave Snow H2Oin1.362.001.091.211.480.220.070.00.150.530.930.9810.02
Ave Rainfallin0.00.00.00.00.130.01.350.630.350.060.00.02.52
Ave H2O precip.in1.362.001.091.211.600.221.420.630.500.600.930.9812.54

This reflects exactly what I have been saying: spring melt occurs in July, there is little rain in the summer - August - and fall comes in September. Its a short season due to the elevation.

Once again your evidence supports my position. The evidence presented shows that Bristlecone Pine trees require dolomite soil in those dry conditions because it preserves moisture, but even the dolomite soil was "below the wilting coefficient on only two dates" ...

Below the 15 atm point. They also talked about how this point was passed with the saplings ...
There are several things involved here:

  1. the PWP was calculated (apparently) based on 15 atm moisture pressure, ignoring that the high elevation would likely alter this metric,
  2. a formula measure was used not a field measurement and determination
  3. trees they tested continued to grow below this point, so they didn't reach the level of wilting to say nothing of getting all the way to actual PWP conditions,
  4. this only applies to soil moisture at 20 cm (8") below the surface, it does NOT record moisture at greater depths,
  5. field determinations of wilting points are known to vary with plants being studied, with deep rooted plants having greater tolerance than shallow plants,
  6. Bristlecone pines are deep rooted plants

... ie in late summer of 1962 over just 5 weeks, in the growing season, even the dolomite soil had insufficient water to support growth on two separate occasions. ...

First it did NOT say that

Second this is you grasping at straws.

Third the saplings studied continued to grow at moisture levels below what was observed, demonstrating that the 15 atm PWP was inaccurate,

Growth did not stop at those moisture levels recorded. It was slowed but it did not stop.

Wilting coefficient is "the level of soil moisture at which water becomes unavailable to plants and permanent wilting ensue"

And seeing as that did NOT occur for the saplings, it is blindingly obvious that FIELD PWP was not reached ...

Soils, Permanent Wilting Points

quote:
Permanent wilting point (PWP) is defined as the largest water content of a soil at which indicator plants, growing in that soil, wilt and fail to recover when placed in a humid chamber. It is often estimated by the water content at - 1.5 MPa soil matric potential.[1] The water content is typically expressed on a weight (g m23 ) or volume (m3 m23 ) basis. As the lower boundary, PWP, along with the upper boundary determined at field capacity, establishes the size of the reservoir of water held in the soil that may be withdrawn by plants, known as plant available water. Field capacity is primarily a function of soil characteristics, while PWP is the product of a combination of plant, soil, and atmosphere factors.

... Many factors in the soil –plant –atmosphere continuum influence the amount of water a plant can extract from the soil before wilting. Soil texture affects the matric potential of the soil by determining capillary pore size and adsorptive properties, and so controls both the amount of water held in and the movement through the soil at low soil water potentials. To extract the soil water, plant roots must be distributed throughout the soil, which is a function of soil properties such as soil strength and texture as well as the rooting characteristics of the crop. ...

Ratliff et al.[7] defined field measurement of PWP (PWPfield) as the lowest field-measured water content of a soil after plants had stopped extracting water and were at or near premature death or became dormant as a result of water stress. Field measurement of PWP may be the most desirable method,[8] because it provides more realistic information about how a plant grows in a certain soil because the soil – plant – environment interactions are allowed to occur.


The saplings were still respiring and still photosythesizing, so the conditions for FIELD PWP were not observed.

The more mature trees would be even more capable of surviving those low moisture levels due to having deep roots.

Point made! Thanks for the info.

Failure to understand is not an argument.

You have shown me that the trees do not have enough moisture to grow continuously.

False.

Figure 4 shows that moisture went below 6.4% on two occasions, EVEN IN THE DOLOMITE SOIL.
You article states "Photosynthesis was SEVERELY DEPRESSED at a soil moisture level between 8 and 6%"
This means that merely in the late summer, these Bristlecone pines although they continued to RESPIRATE (breathe) went through 2 periods of SEVERE DEPRESSION in photosynthesis in the dolomite soil.

Yes, and "SEVERELY DEPRESSED" does not mean stopped, ended, finished, caput, it just means that it slowed down. This would result in smaller cell growth but not the cessation of cell growth.

Notice that this does not meet the definition of PWP.

What your graph does not show is that the dips represent depressed photosynthesis on two occasions in only 5 weeks of 1962 that are so depressed as to be below the level at which moisture is available to plants, and permanent wilting ensues.

False.

As you can see respiration and photosynthesis do not fall below 50% of the levels for 30July 1962. This graph would theoretically indicate the effect on cell growth size, slowed, smaller, but not stopped, not wilted.

RAZD you first have to provide evidence that those are annual rings to make claims about the age of these trees. All your evidence is starting to sound increasingly hollow, your evidence is actually supporting my view. Once you have put forward a strong case for annual rings, then it would be mature to use the accepted dates for these trees, until then its premature to use these dates as any form of factual support for your position that they are actually that old.

Which I have done. Denial of evidence is not an argument, making stuff up is not an argument. Not understanding the vast amount of evidence provided by 100% year by year consilience between three entirely distinct chronologies from three distinct locations on the earth for over 2000 years and the 99.5% consilience back to 7600 BP does not mean that the evidence is not provided.

Markers in tree rings for historical events CONFIRM that they are annual rings.

All you are doing is hand waving denial. Classic cognitive dissonance behavior.

Your link uses carbon dating to date those trees up to 3535 BC. (circular reasoning) ...

How do you get that? Misreading again?

... I was kinda hoping you would show 1816 in the White Mountain tree rings. Message 73 does not focus on BCP Trees in the White Mountains and their recent chronology.

Hope all you want -- that dog don't hunt anymore The information is available you just need to read it.

I found this very interesting. Can you give me a link please?

That's the closest I've come so far to finding one publicly available. It's the same paper as your previous comment ... I have contacted one of the authors to see if they will send me a copy of these two papers:

LaMarche, V.C. Jr., Hirschboek, K.K., Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions, Nature 307, 1984 p121-126

and

LaMarche Jr, V.C. and Harlan, T.P., Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 78 nr 36, 1973, p 8849–8858,

Its not so precise:

Sadly I don't think you understand how precise it is. These chronologies have been extensively studied by the scientists working on the IntCal calibrations and they have very high standards for accuracy and precision, as evidenced by IntCal98 using the German oak and Bristlecone pine chronologies while excluding the Irish oak chronology due to a discrepancy of 41 years at ~8,000 years age, and then IntCal04 using a corrected German oak and pine chronology and the Irish chronology and rejecting the Bristlecone pine chronology due to a discrepancy of 37 years at ~8,000 years of age. 37 years is 0.5% error and that was too much for their needs. They ran checks on the data to confirm their accuracy and precision.

Problems with Dendrochronology
Excerpt from Online Essay
Sean Pitman

www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html

Another shyster.

The consilience is from the premature acceptance of carbon dates, which are out by the same factor as Th-Ur dating (the difference is about 10% due to carbon production changing during the strong magnetic field).

Nope. The consilience actually has nothing to do with carbon dates. However here is something for you to consider:

Whatever the decay rate is, two organic objects from the same time will have the same 14C/12C ratio. They will have it on the day the carbon is absorbed -- in this case by trees in the Sierra Nevada, Ireland and Germany -- and incorporated into the growth of the object -- in this case tree rings in those three locations.

Day by day, year by year, decade by decade, the 14C in each of the tree rings from the same date will decay the same amount, whether the decay rate is hyper-fast or dead slow or varies all over the map ... the result will be the same in each chronology.

They will today have the same proportion of 14C/12C in each of the three chronologies from that date.

This holds true for each and every ring formed in the whole chronology for each location.

So we can compare tree ring age, climate, and 14C/12C levels between each of the chronologies, and if any one of those is out of whack we know there has been an error.

No such error has been found for the first 2000 years and there is only 0.5% error between all three sets at ~8000 BP

Then there are the cycles in production of 14C in the atmosphere, 11 years for solar cycles, 14 years for earths magnetic cycles and others.

The 14C 'age' calculation is based on an exponential formula and the 1/2 life of 5730 years:

Nf = No (1/2)^(t/5730)

Nf = 14C/12C today
No = 14C/12C on day 1
t = time since day 1

So we can use dendro age for t and solve for the theoretical No level:

No = Nf/(1/2)^(t/5730)

When we do this for the tree ring data we see peeks and valleys just as expected for the solar/magnetic cycles ... just like the ticking of a clock and regular as a heart beat.

This is a fourth set of data from just the tree rings that demonstrates the consilience and the age.

Floating tree ring chronologies are tied in with other chronologies using low T-values (4-6) instead of high T-values (1-3) based on approximate carbon dating of the floating tree sequence.

The Bristlecone pine, the Irish oak and the German oak are all absolute chronologies extending back more than 8,000 years with only 0.5% error, they are not floating and they are not tied.

Again, the evidence is overwhelming that these systems measure actual annual rings and actual calendar age, and denial of this fact is not an argument.

To have an argument you need to demonstrate (not assert) with evidence (not hand waving) that each is wrong, what the cause is that still causes exactly the same pattern for climate, 14C/12C ratios, and No variations in each chronology at the same time.

You have not even begun to do that. All your what ifs do not explain the very high consilience of these correlations, you have them going off at different times, at different rates, from different effects, just by assertion (no evidence of any of it actually happening), and then you just claim that they 'look' the same?

consiliencedendro cal ageclimate variation14C/12C level14C variation
Bristlecone pinematchesmatchesmatchesmatches
Irish oakmatchesmatchesmatchesmatches
German oakmatchesmatchesmatchesmatches
Accuracy99.5%99.5%99.5%99.5%

For every ring ...

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : clarity

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 86 by mindspawn, posted 12-03-2013 9:05 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 89 of 119 (712480)
12-04-2013 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 86 by mindspawn
12-03-2013 9:05 AM


LaMarche & Harlan: Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine
I now have copies of these papers from three sources

LaMarche, V. C. Jr. , Hirschboek, K. K. , Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions, Nature 307, 1984 p121-126

and

LaMarche Jr, V. C. and Harlan, T. P. , Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 78 nr 36, 1973, p 8849–8858,

message me with your email addy and I can send you copies.

First:

Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale

quote:
This study is based on wood specimens living trees, standing snags, logs,and weathered remnants from a limited area on Campito Mountain (Figure 1) in the southern White Mountains. Our main objective was to locate and date past levels of the upper tree line, which has retreated about 150 meters vertically within the past several thousand years [LaMarche and Mooney, 1967].

... The final chronology contains 5403 annual values and begins from about 3433 B. C. (as will be shown subsequently,the probable beginning date is 3435 B. C. ). The last annual value is for A. D. 1970. Ring formation was not complete in all trees at the time sampling in late August 1971, and therefore the width of the ring for 1971 was not measured.

Intraannual rings. The basic premises underlying tree ring dating of bristlecone pine are that each growth ring represents wood formed during a single calendary ear and that no more than one ring is formed in any year. Some authorities have questioned the annual character of the growth ring in this species. For example, in referring to White Mountain bristlecone pines, Mirov [1967] writes that 'Apparently a semblance annual rings is formed after every of rather infrequent cloudburst. ' Libby [1963] also suggested that the discrepancy between radiocarbon and tree ring ages of the oldest dendrochronologically dated bristlecone pine samples then available (about 3600 years old) might be explained by these trees having added more by than one ring per year. However, there are several lines of evidence showing that growth rings in bristlecone pines are true annual rings.

The growth rings of bristlecone pine do not resemble the 'false' rings found in some other species. Such intraannual growth bands,which could be misidentified and counted as annual rings, are generally seen to have diffuse or gradational boundaries upon close inspection under the microscope[Glock, 1937; Glock et al, 1960; Stokes and Smiley, 1968]. The small, thick-walled cells of the false 'latewood' of one intraannual band are followed by progressively larger and thinner-walled cells that merge with the false 'earlywood' of the next band. In bristlecone pine the boundary between latewood of one ring and earlywood of the next is almost invariably sharp (Figure 4), with no evidence of gradation in cell size or wall thickness. The rare exceptions occur where extremely low average growth rates have produced sequences of rings only two or three cells in width. However, because growth rings are difficult to identify in such intervals, they are normally discarded for dating purposes and do not represent an important source of uncertainty in tree ring dates.

Further evidence of the nature of the growth ring comes from the study of ring development during the growing season. Dendrographic measurements of tree diameter and cambial samples for cell study were obtained from bristlecone pines in the White Mountains during three consecutive summers [Fritts, 1969]. Cambrial activity and resultant ring growth were found to occur in a relatively brief and well-defined growing season, At the elevation of Fritts' study area (3100 meters), ring growth began in mid-June to late June and ended in late July or early August. Cell size decreased more or less regularly from the beginning to the end of the growing season,and there was no pronounced response to the soil moisture replenishment that resulted from a midseason storm during one of the summers. That is, the trees studied formed only one growth ring in each year and did not form intraannual bands, even under presumably favorable conditions.

Another argument for the annual character of growth rings in bristlecone pine depends on recognition of time-synchronous internal markers in growth ring sequences. These include 'critical' rings, which are much narrower than average, and frost damage zones within certain rings. The identification and matching of growth rings constitute a well-established technique known as cross dating. Introduced by A. E. Douglass in the early 1900's [Douglass,1914], it has since been applied to the dating of a large number of tree ring specimens. Comparison of tree ring sequences obtained from living trees in the same area in different years gives a measure of the number of rings formed per year, provided that the sequences can be cross-dated. ... Schulman collected bristlecone pine samples in 1954 and presented ring width measurements for dated series ending in 1953. Plotted ring width measurements from samples obtained in 1971 can easily be matched with Schulman's series, the indication being that most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period 1954 - 1971. In a few cases only 17 rings were formed, this result being attributable so the local absence of the ring for 1960 on some of the sampled radii. However, in no case has any of the sampled trees formed more than one ring per year sing 1953.

Frost damage zones (frost rings) provide a time-equivalent internal marker that can also be used for relative dating of tree ring sequences [Bailey, 1925] and, in some circumstances, for absolute dating of growth layers [Glock et al 1960]. Frost damage is caused by the occurrence of temperatures well below freezing at sometime during the growing season. Under such conditions, extra cellular ice formation causes dehydration and physical disruption of immature xylem cells,leaving a permanent record in the wood [Glerum and Farrar, 1966]. In bristlecone pines, frost rings are virtually restricted to upper-elevation trees and occur more frequently in young trees than in old ones [LaMarche, 1970].

The circumstances leading to late-season frost damage in bristlecone pine are illustrated by the events in autumn 1965,when extensive frost damage occurred in trees in the Snake Range in Nevada [LaMarche, 1970]. This date is well documented because increment cores were obtained in this area in the summers of both 1965 and 1966 and show that damage occurred after mid-August but prior to the end of the growing season in 1965. Temperatures throughout the period May-September 1965 were much below normal, probably delaying the completion of cambial activity and xylem cell maturation by several weeks. A record cold spell occurred on September 17-19, when the trees were still susceptible to frost damage because of the delayed growing season. ... In bristlecone pine the prolongation of the growing season into early autumn, when sub-freezing temperatures are likely to occur, seems most important as a contributing factor.

Frost rings were studied in increment cores obtained in 1971 from living trees on Campito Mountain (subsample 1). Cores from nine trees showed no frost damage, but at least one frost ring occurred in each of 45 cores from the remaining 31 trees. A count was made of the number of growth rings in each core, back to and including the ring containing the first frost zone encountered. In all but four cases the first evidence of frost damage occurs in the eighty-fifth to eighty-eighth ring, the eighty-eighth ring containing the frost zone in 26 cases. Because of the low average frequency of occurrence of frost rings, this concentration in the eighty-eighth ring is unlikely to have resulted by chance. Rather it must reflect the occurrence of an unusual sequence of meteorological events that caused the simultaneous freezing of the stems of a large number of bristlecone pines at a time when they were susceptible to frost damage. Because only the outer part of the ring was affected, freezing must have occurred in late summer or in early autumn.

If the growth rings in bristlecone pine are annual rings, then a simple count shows that an eighty-eighth ring prior to 1971 would have formed in 1884. Weather records [U. S. War Department, 1884] show that the summer of 1884 was unusually cool in the western United States. ... Red Bluff, California (elevation 104 meters, 440 km northwest of the White Mountains) registered a minimum of 18°C, the low for the month, on September 9. The lowest minimum for September 1884 at Salt Lake City, Utah (elevation 1281 meters, 645 km northeast) was 3°C on September 10. It seems safe to assume that minimum temperatures at the upper tree line in Nevada and eastern California were well below freezing during this period. Although it cannot be demonstrated conclusively that the frost damage in the eighty-eighth ring prior to 1971 did in fact take place in 1884, it is clear that antecedent conditions were highly favorable to such damage and that a cold wave did occur in early September of that year. The phenomenon was of wide geographic extent, since frost rings in bristlecone pines in the Snake Range have also been dated to 1884.

The annual nature of the growth rings in bristlecone pine is thus indicated by their structure by observations of ring growth, by comparison of ring sequences in samples obtained in different years, and by the probable correspondence of frost damage zones with known meteorological events. Although the annual character is demonstrable with certainty only for the last few decades, the growth rings of the oldest wood studied in the work do not differ qualitatively from those forming at the present time. Therefore the basic premises that each ring represents a 1-year growth and that no more than one ring is formed in any given year appear correct.

Locally absent rings. In years of severe environmental stress the cambium may fail to lay down a growth ring over part of the circumference of a tree. Seen in cross section, such rings 'wedge out' in the tangential direction, and the rings of the preceding and following years come into direct contact. The ring will thus be absent from an increment core taken at this location. The local absence of the ring for a particular year in the sample is usually indicated by cross dating with other samples that do contain a ring for that year, In this case the sequence from which the ring is absent will contain one too few rings in comparison with other sequences.

The exact position in which the ring should be located can often be determined because the ring will usually be much narrower than average in the specimens in which it does occur. However, locally absent rings do represent a potential source of error in tree ring dating because of the possibility that the ring for a particular year may not appear in any of the samples covering that time period. In this case the master chronology will be in error by 1 year. ... . Simple extrapolation suggests that absence of an annual ring from all the sample radii would occur less than once in 5400 years. However, this projection may be too optimistic,since the probability of missing a ring entirely depends heavily on the sample size... . Even though the rate of occurrence of years in which rings are locally absent for as many as 35% of the radii is very low (four occurrences in 5403 years), there is a possibility of a few annual rings being unaccounted for in the chronology, particularly in the earliest period, for which the sample size is relatively small (Figure 4). However, if the relationship shown in Figure 5 is even approximately valid, the error in the chronology for this source can only be of the order of 1 year.

Cross dating error. Large dating errors could occur when a long tree ring chronology is developed through the cross dating of overlapping series that are relatively short. For example,two series,each 1000 years long and representing the same time period, could conceivably be mismatched in such a way as to result in an erroneous 'chronology' nearly 2000 years long. Such gross errors are most unlikely to have Occurred in the development of the Campito Mountain chronology. The manner in which the component series are overlapped is shown in Figure 2. Throughout most of the time period there is a regular progressive increase in ages of the earliest rings and a substantial degree of overlap with other series. There is only one discontinuity of the sort that would be expected to occur in this diagram if a major transposition and duplication had been made. The cause is not a gross dating error but rather the occurrence of severe frost damage. This unique event, which is dated at 2035 B. C. , caused the complete disruption of the physical continuity of the wood in the radial direction in nearly all the specimens. As a result specimens fall apart along this surface, which has also been an avenue for weathering and decay. Most measured ring width series thus end a few years prior to 2035 B. C. and are continued a few years afterward. The fact that this traumatic frost damage is not repeated anywhere in the record strongly supports the conclusion that no gross duplications have been made that would result in large chronological errors and that might yield erroneous tree ring ages substantially greater than the true age of the wood.

Chronological Comparison

An important test of the reproducibility of tree ring dating methods is provided by cross comparison of two independently constructed chronologies for bristlecone pine. One is the Methuselah chronology, which has been the standard used in dating wood samples for comparative radiocarbon analysis. It is based largely on wood samples from the relatively low elevation Methuselah Walk area, about 10 miles south of the Campito Mountain study site described in this paper. The 7104-year segment of the Methuselah chronology, published by Ferguson [1969] will serve as a basis for comparison with the 5403-year Campito chronology. The dates referred to here will be in the extended time scale, adopted for convenience in data processing, in which 8001 equals A. D. 1 and 8000 equals 1 B. C. The suffix M designates Methuselah chronology dates, and C designates Campito chronology dates.

The Campito chronology contains 5403 annual values beginning in 4568 C (about 3433 B. C. ) and ending in 9970 C (A. D. 1970). Cross dating shows that 4568 C represents the same annual ring as 4566 M. Thus the Methuselah chronology contains two more annual values than the Campito chronology does between 4566 M and 9962 M (A. D. 1962, the date of the last ring represented in the published Methuselah series). There appear to be no years for which a ring is present in the Campito chronology but absent from the Methuselah chronology. Thus the discrepancy seems to be explained by the absence of annual rings for 2 calendar years in all the Campito samples, rings that are present in at least some of the Methuselah samples. Year-by-year comparison indicates that the rings dated at 5859M and 5330 M are absent from the Campito chronology. Insertion of a nominal value of '0' for the ring width index for each of these years (Figure 6) brings the chronologies into exact synchrony. The error of 2 years due to locally absent rings is in excellent agreement with the estimated error of about 1 year on the basis of the evaluation of the frequency of locally absent rings within the Campito sample.

Cross dating of the two chronologies can be demonstrated objectively by means of cross-correlation analysis... . When the Campito dates are adjusted by insertion of the two 'missing' rings, the cross-correlation coefficients for the entire period are positive and highly significant (Figure 7). Correlation analysis thus verifies the adjustments made in the Campito chronology on the basis of visual comparison of the plotted series of tree ring indices.

The nearly perfect agreement between two independently developed chronologies shows that dendrochronological techniques give highly reproducible results upon their application to bristlecone pine. This agreement is further evidence that some gross cross dating errors have not been made in the development of either of the two chronologies.

Summary and Conclusion

A long tree ring chronology for bristlecone pine has been developed independently of previous work. Several lines of evidence show that the growth rings are true annual rings. Evaluation of several potential sources of error in tree ring dates indicates that any uncertainty in calendar dates assigned to annual rings in this series is due to annual rings that may be absent from all samples for a particular year or years. Internal evidence and intrachronological comparison suggest that there are only two such occurrences in the 5403-year Campito record developed in this work. Annual rings for these years are represented in the Methuselah chronology, which has served as the standard for most radiocarbon calibration studies. The Methuselah chronology very probably contains no dating error, at least back to 3435 B. C.

Tree ring dates for bristlecone pine are accurate and reproducible with high precision. Therefore the large discrepancies observed between dendrochronological and radiocarbon ages of bristlecone pine wood samples, especially prior to about 2000 B. C. , cannot be explained by major systematic errors in tree ring dating.


This would seem to answer all of your questions and issues in regards to Bristlecone pines.

Note that the 1884 date is found in both White Mountain Bristlecone pines and the Colorado pines by frost rings and correlated with a well documented cold season.

Note that an error of 2 years in 5403 years is <0.04% error ...

Again if you want a copy message me you e-mail address and I will send it to you.

I will quote the other paper in a reply to this message (this is long enough)

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : added quote to first paper

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle

Edited by RAZD, : error %

Edited by RAZD, : .

Edited by RAZD, : subtitle


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 86 by mindspawn, posted 12-03-2013 9:05 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2013 7:50 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 18650
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 90 of 119 (712533)
12-04-2013 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by RAZD
12-04-2013 8:56 AM


LaMarche & Hirschboek: Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions
LaMarche, V. C. Jr. , Hirschboek, K. K. , Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions, Nature 307, 1984 p121-126

Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions

quote:
Frost damage to the wood of mature trees is a rare phenomenon caused by temperatures well below freezing at some time during the growing season, when secondary wall thickening and Iignification of immature xylem cells in the annual ring is not yet complete. Freezing promotes extracellular ice formation and dehydration which result in crushing of the outermost zone of weaker cells, leaving a permanent, anatomically distinctive record in the wood [8]. Two successive nights with temperatures reaching -5°C and an intervening day at about the freezing level are sufficient to cause frost damage [9]. Two types of frost rings can be distinguished: earlywood frost damage in the inner part of the ring, which occurs near the beginning of the growing season and latewood frost damage, which typically involves only the dark zone of small, thick-walled cells formed near the end of the growing season (Fig. 1). If the period of cambial activity is known, observing the position of the damage in a ring often permits dating of the event to within a week or two. If daily meteorological data are available, it is usually possible to identify the specific date on which the damage took place and thus, to characterize the synoptic meteorological situation as well as the antecedent climatic conditions that may have contributed to formation of a frost ring.

Frost-damage zones have been produced in the annual rings of subalpine bristlecone pines (Pinus longaeva D. K. Bailey and P. aristata Engel.) at intervals of a few decades to a few hundred years for at least the past 4,000 yr. They are observed at localities ranging from California to Colorado, a distance of some 1,300 km. In the course of tree-ring chronology development, the presence and type of frost damage in dated annual rings from living trees [10-12] and sub-fossil wood [13,14] was routinely noted. It soon became clear that frost damage had not occurred randomly, but that characteristic frost-ring dates were common to many trees at the same site or general locality, and even to localities several hundred kilometres apart. For the period of meteorological record it was possible to identify the dates of damaging related meteorological events because the growing season of bristlecone pine is known fairly well. For example [15,16], in the White Mountains, California and the Snake Range, Nevada the frost event that produced latewood damage in AD 1884 (Fig. 1) probably took place on 9-10 September, and similar latewood damage in 1965 probably occurred on 17-19 September. In each case temperatures reached new record lows for the month at nearby meteorological stations. ...

Antecedent climatic conditions may also be important. Study of two years (1884 and 1965) in which latewood frost damage took place in bristlecone pines in California and Nevada shows that these were notably cool summers in the western Great Basin [17,18]. One effect of such cool conditions is to delay both the onset and the completion of cambial activity. Bristlecone pines near the upper tree line normally begin radial growth about late June, and cell maturation is complete by late August, some 3 - 4 weeks later than in trees near the lower forest border in the same area [19]. During a cool summer, maturation may be delayed to late September, when severely cold weather would be more likely to occur even during a normal year, and this would widen the tree's 'window of vulnerability' to damaging frost.

One important consequence of a large explosive eruption is the spread of a stratospheric veil of fine silicate ash and sulphur aerosols, with resultant surface cooling [20] that may be accentuated at high latitudes by the veil's long residence time in the Arctic stratosphere [21,22]. The degree of concentration of such a cooling effect, and the time lag involved depends in part on the location of the volcano and the composition of the veil [23], on the prevailing circulation, and in part on the season of the year in which the eruption occurs [1].

... Wexler's basic premise seems to be supported by Lamb's observation [21] of southward displacement of the sub-polar low-pressure zone in the North Atlantic sector in the first July following a great eruption, and continuing in some cases for 3 - 4 yr. ...

... Synoptic situations more typical of winter may be expected to occur in late spring and in early autumn. Such a scenario seems to have been followed in the frost-ring year of 1884, where an examination of daily surface-pressure maps for 9 and 10 September shows a very large high-pressure area extending from northern Saskatchewan and Manitoba down through California, Nevada and Utah, probably representing an outbreak of cold Arctic air that took place unusually early, near the end of an already cool and delayed growing season. ...

Data from bristlecone pines at seven localities in the western USA [12] were studied in this work (Fig.2). These include three sites in New Mexico and southern Colorado, two sites in the Colorado Front Range, one site on the Nevada-Utah border, and four sites in the White Mountains of eastern California. The tree-ring records from the Rocky Mountains begin between AD 560 and 1535. The chronology from the central Great Basin begins in AD 737. Although all of the sites have potential for chronological extension based on records from dead trees and remnants, this approach has been most successful at one site (Campito Mountain) in the White Mountains, where the continuous upper treeline chronology begins in 3435 BC [11,13,16]. The chronological control provided by these cross-dated tree-ring records representing large numbers of trees ensures accurate placement in time of both the frost-damage event and any associated volcanic eruptions.

... For example, several frost events are common to the Rocky Mountains and to the Snake Range, others to the Snake Range and the White Mountains. ... There are 25 of these notable events in a total of some 116 individual years during which frost damage occurred in at least one sampled tree somewhere in the region. ...

The postulated linkage between atmospheric veil effects caused by major volcanic eruptions and the climatological and meteorological setting for severe and widespread frost damage was originally suggested by the remarkable coincidence of frost-ring dates which fell no more that 2 yr after each of the four climatically effective Northern Hemisphere or equatorial eruptions and eruption sequences of the past 100 yr. These dates are 1884 (Krakatoa, 1883), 1902 (Pelee, Soufriere, early 1902) 1912 (Katmai (Novarupta) early 1912), and 1965 (Agung, 1963). In addition to their measured effects on the intensity of the direct solar beam [21], the aerosol veils associated with most of these eruptions seem to have caused widespread surface cooling [20,23]. To provide a much longer, if less accurate data set for further evaluation, we referred to Lamb's volcanic eruption chronology [1] and to his dust-veil estimates. ... For reference purposes, note that Lamb had scaled his indices to give Krakatoa, 1883, an index of 1000. There are 19 such events in the total period, AD 1500 - 1968, covered by his chronology (Table 1 and Fig. 3.). In 10 cases, a notable frost event as previously defined occurred in the western USA in the same year or within 1 or 2 yr following a major eruption or eruption sequence. It is also true that in nine cases a frost event occurred without an apparent antecedent volcanic event, and seven volcanic events have no known associated frost event.

... From elementary probability theory [30], the expected frequency of joint occurrences of events in two random, completely independent series is equal to the product of their individual probabilities. ... Despite the small sample size, the results suggest that for each subperiod, the observed number of joint occurrences of volcanic and frost events is very unlikely to have arisen by chance. ...

The analytical results show that we can tentatively associate with many notable frost events in the western USA of the past several hundred years with antecedent volcanic eruptions cataloged by Lamb.


Many correlated frost rings and volcanic eruptions provide additional evidence that the Bristlecone pine dendrochronology is accurate and precise.

We can note that this additional cross-checking of tree samples covers a wide area and trees in four states - California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado, and that the two species of Bristlecone pine - Pinus longaeva and Pinus aristata - are used.

We can add 1884 to the list and confirm that 1816 is on the list. We could add several more, but these suffice to demonstrate the accuracy in recent times.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : sp\typo


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 89 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2013 8:56 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

  
Prev12345
6
78Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017