Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 114 (8795 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 10-18-2017 12:29 PM
332 online now:
Aussie, Modulous (AdminModulous), PaulK, Phat (AdminPhat), RAZD (5 members, 327 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Upcoming Birthdays: Astrophile
Post Volume:
Total: 820,804 Year: 25,410/21,208 Month: 1,037/2,338 Week: 158/450 Day: 30/52 Hour: 3/3

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Author Topic:   Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19079
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(3)
Message 91 of 119 (712665)
12-05-2013 7:01 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by mindspawn
12-03-2013 9:05 AM


Time to move on
With Message 89, LaMarche & Harlan: Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine, and Message 90, LaMarche & Hirschboek: Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions , it should be clear that tree rings counted in the dendrochronologies for Bristlecone pine are in fact annual rings with a high degree of accuracy and precision, that it correlates with known historical events and it correlates ring by ring year by year with the Irish oak and German oak and pine chronologies (which also correlate with each other) to an extremely high degree.

The probability that these three independent chronologies would be different responses to different inputs but still match ring for ring year by year by different mechanisms for the years covered by all three is so vanishingly small that my calculator returns 0 for the value (~1/(8000x8000x8000)).

This very high consilience, very high accuracy, and very high precision give extremely high confidence in the results.

It is time accept the reality of dendrochronology and move on.

The Lake Suigetsu varves, (Message 77, Lake Suigetsu varves ... revisited), have also been demonstrated (Message 87, Re: Lake Suigetsu varves -- annual, annual, annual) to be annual layers as well.

When they are matched to the dendrochronology by the levels of 14C/12C they match the dendrochronology data distribution for age -- same basic slope and variation pattern -- indicating by this consilience that they are measuring the same thing -- calendar age.

Note that the probability of matching 14C/12C values over a period of 5387 years (from 7,023 cal BP to 12,410 cal BP) is 1/(5387x5387) if they were random occurrences that just happened to match ... which is also very very small ... even if we only consider it an 80% match the probability is (1/(0.8X5387)^2 = 0.000000054 -- so small that I put it in the "highly unlikely" category.

You have tried to argue against each method individually and then claim that the consilience just happens.

This is not good enough.

You need a mechanism to cause different results
You need evidence that this mechanism works
you need evidence that this mechanism is observed in the proper location
and then when you have done all that for each system ...
you need to explain why they agree with such high accuracy and precision.

So far you don't have a mechanism, all you have suggested is that this system is off here and that system is off there

You have no evidence that this actually occurred, and you have not touched the consilience except to say it is an illusion.

This is not good enough.

I trust that the time you are taking to reply is time you are taking to read the information provided, time to understand the degree to which the accuracy and precision of dendrochronology and lake varve counting are evidenced, not just on their own, but in conciliation with each other and history and other measurement systems.

I'd like to discuss Cariaco Basin varves next. They add another layer of consilience to the information already presented, adding even more confidence in these results, and I would like to get your criticism of this information, particularly as spring tides cannot affect these marine varves ...

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : )

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : added


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by mindspawn, posted 12-03-2013 9:05 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 92 of 119 (713010)
12-09-2013 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by RAZD
12-02-2013 7:26 PM


SUMMARY
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,

RAZD, I can see that I will never have the time to catch up, but thanks for the offer to wait and let me catch up. Even since your offer to wait you have posted 5 posts for my 2 posts, so I am getting further and further behind and will never catch up. Due to my inability to keep up with your posts I am therefore summarizing my arguments in order to conclude this debate:

Summary:

A) Lake Suigetsu, you went to great lengths to explain how the river sediment is suspended and therefore deposits seasonally and then in post 87 you quoted contradictory information regarding how they chose the Lake due to the LACK of suspended sediment, and your quote actually supports my position:
" The result of this is that the waters of Lake Suigetsu have very little suspended sediment"
The lack of seasonal sedimentation fits in with my point that the alternating layers of diatom density are largely caused by regular die-offs during the diatom blooms. Diatoms do have blooms, they do often have more than one annual die off, and the dust/sediment between the layers is of a regular and non-seasonal nature, as per your post 87 "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."
Note: the sediment comes from dust and "differential growth of organisms (algae)
Diatoms are algae.

B) Carbon dating the OLDEST bristlecone pines: the vast ages of the oldest of these white mountain trees are limited to a few very elevated White Mountain locations. I believe it is a contradiction that the oldest living Bristlecone Pine trees are in the harshest bristlecone pine locations of the White Mountains. As per your quote in Message 90, Libby [1963] detected a discrepancy between radiocarbon age and tree ring age only in the OLDEST of these white Mountain trees. Your whole argument and your evidence presented does not specifically focus on the oldest of these trees, and these are the ones which show radiocarbon discrepancies as per Libby [1963]
Quote from your Message 90:
"Intraannual rings. The basic premises underlying tree ring dating of bristlecone pine are that each growth ring represents wood formed during a single calendar year 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."

Your argument, as per the LaMarche Frost ring argument, focusses on Bristlecone Pine Trees in general and proves that their tree rings are annual. This is something I have always agreed with, and so your continuous proof of this does not add to your argument. I do however admit that I asked for proof of this in the White Mountain locations, which you have now showed to me. I feel this still misses the actual point I am trying to make that the OLDEST of these White Mountain trees are susceptible to multiple tree rings, which Libby seems to have confirmed through radiocarbon dating discrepancies. LaMarche's failure to deal with Libby's findings is two-fold, firstly he fails to actually explain if these oldest trees are included in his frost ring study and secondly he fails to explain Libby's carbon dating discrepancies found in these oldest trees.

C) Tree Ring growth in dry harsh locations: In your Message 80, your quote stated: "it can be seen that at the field site where soil moisture was measured, moisture levels on dolomite were below the wilting coefficient on only two dates"
Wilting coefficient is defined as the minimal point of soil moisture the plant requires not to wilt.

In response in your message 88 you stated that the plants continued to respirate and continued to photosynthesize
"The saplings were still respiring and still photosythesizing, so the conditions for FIELD PWP were not observed"
I agree that they were still photosynthesizing, but you seem to miss the point that photosynthesizing and growing are two separate things. If I eat a few crumbs a day, I will still digest, I will still be feeding and using the carbohydrates for energy. But my net condition will be loss of weight and not growth.
Plants may breathe and photosynthesize, but this could be at wilting or stagnating levels, to actually grow requires more moisture because your own quote showed that in one 5 week period these trees reached wilting level TWICE despite photosynthesizing and respiring.

I believe the information you have presented favors my argument that in especially harsh dry conditions trees can stop growing (its pretty obvious really).

D) T-values of dendrochronology. http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html
" 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. 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. "

Your claim that we can have a 99.5% degree of confidence in tree ring chronologies was disproved by Yamaguchi who showed that those confidence levels can be reached even with proven incorrect dates. T-values of 1-2 would be acceptable, 3 debatable, but T-values of 4-6 are frankly unreliable, and this is what dendrochronology is based on.
Your counter argument : Another shyster.

E) Thorium/Uranium dating:
Your message 76 did not deal with the core issue, if a slight INCREASE in penetration of the solar wind can cause a slight slowdown in radioactive decay, then it is highly probable that a LARGE DECREASE in penetration of the solar wind AND cosmic rays would cause a large increase in radioactive decay rates.

From about 200AD and earlier the magnetic field was 1.5 times stronger, there would definitely have been a large decrease in the penetration of the solar wind and cosmic rays and it is highly probable that radioactive decay rates were greatly increased during this period.

The application of the assumption of randomness and the half-life formula to processes that are definitely not random no longer makes sense. The vast periods of time predicted by the half-life exponential formula are no longer applicable, and yet science retains its head-in-the sand approach to a very obvious relationship between solar/cosmic penetration and measured decay rates that would have been exacerbated just 1800 years ago.

F) Perceived consilience: Lake Suigetsu
1) Many lakes have a definite annual/seasonal deposition character, the use of the unique location of Lake Suigetsu with its algae related layers and its lack of attachment to the local river does not add strength to the seasonal requirement of the layers. Its damning to carbon dating that this is one of the few locations used as verification of carbon dating when many other lakes do have seasonal deposition.
2) Consilience with older volcanoes etc is obvious due to the carbon dating of those volcanoes matching a location chosen for its carbon dating match.
3) Recent volcanic eruptions with historically verified dates like Towado and Aso do NOT have a decent match with Lake Suigetsu (no ash layers indicated), and would have a much better fit if the lakes' dates were reduced by an approximate factor of 11. For example the unknown ash layer at 2800 years ago would be re-dated to about 573AD close to the Aso volcano of 553bc, and the K-Ah volcano of 6500 years ago would be re-dated to about 910AD closely matching the 915AD date of the Towado eruption. The perceived consilience is with cross checking with carbon dated or Th-Ur dated eruptions against a lake chosen for its carbon dating consilience despite the seasonal nature of silt deposition in other lakes.

G) Perceived consilience: Dendrochronology:
1) Recent consilience for many hundreds of years is accurate in all ways. The cross checks between chronologies are correctly checked against major events (volcanic) and correctly checked against actual historical dates.
2) there is doubt on some of the oldest trees having carbon dating consilience as per Libby. LaMarche does not deal with this effectively. He does not explain if his cross-checking with the White Mountain trees includes Libby's oldest trees that did not show carbon dating consilience, these trees showed discrepancies. (non-consilience)
3)The low T-values of the older tree ring chronologies could be abused through using carbon dating as a guideline for floating chronologies and then creating overlaps through low t-values (4-6) instead of high t-values (1-3). The end result is unintended circular reasoning by involving carbon dating and we therefore have long-term consilience with carbon dating.

H) Perceived consilience: Th-Ur dating
Th-Ur dating does match carbon dating due to the same method being used (decay of elements/isotopes).
The current measured decay rates of both methods are all out by the same percentage due to the magnetic field being about 1.5 times stronger about 1800 years ago and earlier.

I) Ice cores - not yet discussed.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2013 10:37 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 12:13 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 10:00 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 10:56 AM mindspawn has responded
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 4:55 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 6:15 PM mindspawn has responded
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 9:03 PM mindspawn has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19079
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 93 of 119 (713125)
12-09-2013 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by mindspawn
12-09-2013 5:51 AM


Re: SUMMARY -- reply 1: consilience
Thanks mindspawn, I'll try to slow down ...

RAZD, I can see that I will never have the time to catch up, but thanks for the offer to wait and let me catch up. Even since your offer to wait you have posted 5 posts for my 2 posts, so I am getting further and further behind and will never catch up. ...

Note that two of those posts involved old LaMarche papers that are hard to find and get access to. Thus I transcribed extensive sections of those papers to make the information available to you. As noted I can email you any papers you do not have that I have quoted from in case you are interested in reading the whole paper.

... Due to my inability to keep up with your posts I am therefore summarizing my arguments in order to conclude this debate:

Well I hope you don't quit at this point, for a number of reasons. One is that this is only the beginning of the annual information available -- we haven't gotten to ice cores in any real detail, nor have we fully discussed radiometric dating methods or Cariaco Basin varves, Lake Lisan sediments, ... . Another is that I don't want to see you using this as an excuse to run away from the information and try to resolve your cognitive dissonance by telling yourself it was just too much work ...

We seem to be hung up on little aspects of the dendrochronology and Lake Suigetsu parts (with occasional sojourns into the other information), and the real issue is not how precisely accurate every little bit is and what could be wrong with each one, but why they agree with each other with such accuracy and precision, time and again.

You really have not even begun to tackle the beginning of the consilience issue. You have failed to explain why

  • why Bristlecone pine chronology #2 matches Bristlecone pine chronology #1
    • for every single year but two in over 5,000 years of record,
    • the locations of two missing years were identified by matching each ring from the beginning until each discrepancy was found
    • that when tree rings of zero width were inserted in those places, that they then continued to match ring for ring year for year after each insertion for the whole length of chronology #2 (the shorter chronology) -- a 100% match, TOTAL AGREEMENT,
    • that chronology #1 showed very narrow bands in those years, narrow annual type bands not false ring type bands,
    • that the data from the intervening years - 18 - between the modern ends of these chronologies showed NOT ONE single extra ring but several trees had 1 missing ring, making the occurrence of missing rings a much much higher probability than extra rings (1/18 = 0.0556; 0/18 = 0 ... and 0.0556/0 = ∞ ... just sayin' ... )

  • why the two different independent oak chronologies agree with near 100% (>99.5%) accuracy at over 8,000 years. These two chronologies have also been compared year for year and ring by ring shortly after each was constructed (see A Slice Through Time - Dendrochronology and Precision Dating by M.G.L. Baillie chapter 2 "Oak dendrochronology comes of age" -- yes I can email it to you).
  • why the two oak chronologies agree with the two Bristlecone pine chronologies year for year and ring by ring for over 5,000 years, ring for ring and year by year,
  • why the two oak chronologies agree with the older Bristlecone pine chronology year for year and ring by ring for over 7,600 years, ring for ring and year by year, with an error of only 37 years, an error of only 0.48% ...
  • why that error is apparently due to the Bristlecone pine chronology being too you -- missing 37 rings near the end (where sample number is low and chance of error increases)
  • why the three long chronologies also match for 14C/12C levels year by year and ring by ring
  • why the Lake Suigetsu varves could match up to the tree ring chronologies with a high degree of accuracy and precision, showing similar 14C/12C levels for the same ages

There is more to this consilience issue than you may realize.

If two chronologies agree there is a high degree of consilience ...
If three chronologies agree there are three different equally high degrees of consilience, so we have 3 times the confidence provided by a match-up of two chronologies, and ...
If four chronologies agree there are six different equally high degrees of consilience, so we have 6 times the confidence provided by a match-up of two chronologies, and ...

Each time I add a consilience the work you need to do to explain it away with hand waving random occurrences, mistakes and gross errors is compounded ... because they WILL match if they are accurate and precise and they WILL NOT match if they are erroneous in any way.

Note that I will respond to each part of your summary with a separate post so that it doesn't become excessively long: one of the problems with replying to posts with rabbit holes, misrepresentations and erroneous information is that it takes a lot of information to fill in and correct, and this can get tedious if I put it all in one post.

Please read the information in LaMarche & Harlan: Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine (Msg=89) and LaMarche & Hirschboek: Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions (Msg=90) as they should answer your questions on dendrochronology and the accuracy of the Bristlecone pine chronologies. Note I can also email you copies of these papers.

But mostly I want to see you address the consiliences.

Enjoy.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by mindspawn, posted 12-09-2013 5:51 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 2:28 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19079
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(2)
Message 94 of 119 (713130)
12-10-2013 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by mindspawn
12-09-2013 5:51 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2a - dendrochronology pt 1
G) Perceived consilience: Dendrochronology: ...

I don't think you really understand the meaning of consilience. You either have two independent systems that agree or you don't. There is nothing perceived about whether you have it or not.

IF they agree they demonstrate that each independent system is more likely to be correct than incorrect.

IF the independent systems are not correct then the random occurrences, errors and mistakes that would be needed to make them appear consilient would be massive and astounding.

1) Recent consilience for many hundreds of years is accurate in all ways. The cross checks between chronologies are correctly checked against major events (volcanic) and correctly checked against actual historical dates.

Check

2) there is doubt on some of the oldest trees having carbon dating consilience as per Libby. LaMarche does not deal with this effectively. He does not explain if his cross-checking with the White Mountain trees includes Libby's oldest trees that did not show carbon dating consilience, these trees showed discrepancies. (non-consilience)

You do realize, don't you that Libby is the founder of 14C dating methodology and he is talking about the first comparison of 14C dating with a dendrochronology ... what he is saying is that the 14C 'ages' don't match the dendro calendar ages ... and this is correct.

But this is OLD NEWS, circa 1950, and I don't think you will find anyone that thinks they should be the same ages now because we KNOW that the amounts of 14C in the atmosphere vary over time.

That said, however, there is still general agreement with 14C dating showing consistently older dates for older samples, and this correlation (not consilience) is the same for all three long dendrochronologies.

That these three chronologies have the same correlation to 14C 'age' means that these correlations are highly consilient from the three chronologies (3 times the confidence of just two matches).

3)The low T-values of the older tree ring chronologies could be abused through using carbon dating as a guideline for floating chronologies and then creating overlaps through low t-values (4-6) instead of high t-values (1-3). ...

Could be does not mean is. For instance your shyster showed (you anyway) that he could trick the system by intentionally mismatching tree rings using t values of 4 ....

Your claim that we can have a 99.5% degree of confidence in tree ring chronologies was disproved by Yamaguchi who showed that those confidence levels can be reached even with proven incorrect dates. T-values of 1-2 would be acceptable, 3 debatable, but T-values of 4-6 are frankly unreliable, and this is what dendrochronology is based on.
Your counter argument : Another shyster.

Let's do a simple thought experiment ...

If I classify all tree ring thicknesses into four categories, from 0 to the maximum thickness, tmax, assuming a normal distribution, as follows:

  1. the thinnest one quarter thicknesses of the data
  2. A to 0.5tmax
  3. 0.5tmax to D where D is
  4. the thickest one quarter thicknesses of the data

Thus A, B, C and D are equally probable at any one ring picked.

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

You can pick any ring on either, so let's say it is an A ring, you match A1 to A2 ... obviously you could do this many times ...

Now the probability that the next rings will also match is 1 in 4 ... if they are completely random and unrelated sequences ... 25% ... so you will still be able to find a number of such cross correlations.

The probability that the next ring will match is (1/4)x(1/4) or 1 in 16 ... 6.25% ... and you can still find several such instances.

The probability that the fourth ring will match is (1/4)^3 or 1 in 64 ... 1.56% ... and your likelihood of finding matches is getting small

If you match 5,000 rings the probability of this occurring through random chance and error is (1/4)^(5000-1) ... or 1 in ...
4,987,657,792,201,895,962,209,355,406,708,
962,709,558,742,079,715,481,137,130,022,374,
632,359,707,555,486,657,979,990,421,009,048,
649,474,832,782,355,802,281,067,889,122,837,
353,445,279,398,446,483,024,080,989,463,932,
511,698,448,631,691,311,637,816,514,973,880,
137,521,729,548,327,885,627,152,115,154,526,
171,377,268,716,522,406,222,022,622,473,709,
502,313,485,408,314,462,655,392,077,368,475,
639,228,097,016,306,274,160,968,610,261,689,
967,906,746,363,305,717,134,540,423,578,943,
907,410,190,709,220,190,183,057,133,772,909,
518,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,00,00,000,000 ... that's an awful lot of commas ...
= 4.99Χ10^3009 ... can I say vanishingly small?

This is where the power of consilience really comes in to play, when you are comparing two chronologies that were developed independently from independent samples of trees in two different locations and they compare with the level of accuracy and precision seen for the two Bristlecone pine chronologies, for the two oak chronologies and for all four chronologies combined ... you are dealing with even smaller probabilities ...

Three such massively consilient chronologies could compare with such accuracy with the probability of this occurring through random chance and error for ...

1 in (4.99Χ10^3009)^2

Four would be ...

1 in (4.99Χ10^3009)^3

Or approximately 0.

Your shyster could build his fake chronology to 5,000 years and tell you it was as accurate as these others ... but when you cross-checked it against each one of these four chronologies you would find very, very little match-up, you would find the same number of errors compared with each one -- it would be thrown out and your shyster would be shown to be massively wrong. That's why I know he is a shyster -- he only tells you half the truth.

If you read LaMarche & Harlan: Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine (Msg=89) you will find that the two Bristlecone pine chronologies match every single tree ring thickness variation from one end of the overlap period to the other.

This demonstrates -- conclusively -- that the sections of overlap are correct in these chronologies. This is the power of consilience, this is what consilience means.

... The end result is unintended circular reasoning by involving carbon dating and we therefore have long-term consilience with carbon dating.

Seeing as carbon dating is not used in the formation of any one of these chronologies it is not involved, and it has nothing to do with the formation of these chronologies.

That is straight forward, not circular. This correlation is compared AFTER the chronologies are complete as a further check on their accuracy and precision.

The plain and simple fact is that each of these chronologies also correlate to 14C/12C levels -- the same levels at the same dendro calendar ages -- not because they are 'arranged' that way, but because they each measure the same thing.

And again, taking samples from your shyster's chronology would have 14C/12C values all over the place, another demonstration that he was in error.

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : ...

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 92 by mindspawn, posted 12-09-2013 5:51 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 4:22 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19079
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 95 of 119 (713151)
12-10-2013 10:00 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by mindspawn
12-09-2013 5:51 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2b - dendrochronology pt 2
B) Carbon dating the OLDEST bristlecone pines: the vast ages of the oldest of these white mountain trees are limited to a few very elevated White Mountain locations. I believe it is a contradiction that the oldest living Bristlecone Pine trees are in the harshest bristlecone pine locations of the White Mountains. ...

Curiously what you choose to believe has little measurable effect on reality.

... As per your quote in Message 90, Libby [1963] detected a discrepancy between radiocarbon age and tree ring age only in the OLDEST of these white Mountain trees. Your whole argument and your evidence presented does not specifically focus on the oldest of these trees, and these are the ones which show radiocarbon discrepancies as per Libby [1963]

Curiously ALL dating of annual ages show a discrepancy between measured calendar age and measure & calculated based on assuming steady 14C/12C in the atmosphere at 1950 levels.

Amazingly they ALL show the same discrepancy at the same calendar ages when these correlations are compared, an astounding coincidence if due to random, error prone measurements ...

Incredibly this near absolute consilience in the mis-match between carbon-14 'age' calculations and actual calendar age is a strong indicator that some other variable in involved that has not been accounted for in the calculated age ... it is a simple formula ...

(14C/12C in a sample today) = (14C/12C in the sample when formed)x(1/2)^(age/half-life)

Just solve for age because we can measure the (14C/12C in a sample today) with high precision and accuracy, we know the half-life of 14C from numerous laboratory studies, and we know the 14C/12C in the sample when formed ... oh, wait ...

... we actually know that the amount of 14C/12C in the atmosphere changes due to earth's magnetic field, solar sun cycles, and changes in the balance of carbon between the atmosphere and the ocean and with plants.

Could it be that this is the cause of the discrepancy between radiocarbon 'age' and calendar age?

We can check against 10Be levels, which are formed in a similar manner as 14C ... and surprise we find a very similar pattern ... a pattern consistent with the pattern for 14C for much of the record, the solar/magnetic part (not the ocean\plant part).

Quote from your Message 90:
"Intraannual rings. The basic premises underlying tree ring dating of bristlecone pine are that each growth ring represents wood formed during a single calendar year 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."

Questioned in 1967 ... and answered in the '80's and '90's ... ... why do creationists hold old discarded ideas with such high regard?

Check out "A Slice Through Time - Dendrochronology and Precision Dating" by M.G.L. Baillie from your local library and read chapter 2 ...

http://www.amazon.com/...ochronology-Precision/dp/0713476540

quote:
A Slice Through Time - Dendrochronology and Precision Dating by M.G.L. Baillie
Publication Date: June 2, 1997 | ISBN-10: 0713476540 | ISBN-13: 978-0713476545 | Edition: 1
The dramatic development of European oak chronologies over the last ten years parallels and supplements the bristlecone-pine chronology in the United States. Dendrochronologists can now provide a wood sample - a time capsule of biological material - for any calender date over the last seven millennia from two continents.
For archaeologists, resigned to the imprecision of radiocarbon dating, the implications are profound. For the first time it is possible to establish precise dates for prehistoric events. Similarly, we have an independent and scientifically objective way of testing historical accounts, such as the traditional Egyptian chronology. Equally fundamental are the insights provided by the related disciplines of dendroecology and dendroclimatology. The Bronze Age eruption of Santorini and the AD 540 `event' are explored as fascinating case studies.
Drawing on a further decade of research by himself and others, Mike Baille not only brings the pre-1980 story up to date, but demonstrates the wide and exciting applications of this comparatively new science.

Or I can email you a copy of chapter 2: Oak dendrochronology comes of age.

quote:
Tertiary replication of the European oak chronologies
With the announcement of a consensus 7272-year European oak chronology in 1984 the first major phase of European dendrochronology was completed. Oak chronologies of comparable length to Ferguson’s bristlecone pine chronology were available and represented an equivalent standard for the purpose of radiocarbon calibration. ...

... Tree-ring studies, like other branches of science, are ongoing and in 1984 we witnessed one of those examples of parallel work which are so frequent in the history of science. Just when it was needed, and unknown to any of the Belfast, Koln or Stuttgart workers, Leuschner and Delorme, at Gottingen, published a note on their completion of a separate German chronology from AD 785 to 4008 BC (Leuschner and Delorme 1984). Here then was the opportunity for an independent test of the Belfast chronology. ... The results of running the various sections of the Belfast prehistoric chronology against the independent Gottingen chronology confirmed that both prehistoric chronologies were in precise synchronization. Despite the distances involved, the original Long Chronology gave t = 8.8 at 949 BC, Swan Carr gave t = 8.45 at 381 BC and even Garry Bog 2 gave t = 3.6 at 229 BC (Brown et al. 1986). Since that time numerous additional sections of English prehistoric chronology have shown consistent matching against both the Belfast and Gottingen chronologies ... the Gottingen chronology provided the ultimate tertiary replication necessary to prove the European oak complex.


Note the reference to tertiary replication -- they were not satisfied until they had the same information from outside independent sources that showed their chronology was consistent/consilient with others.

Note that one of the purposes for making the chronology was to test the Bristlecone pine chronology to 14C 'age' correlation ... would it be the same or would it be different? They didn't know at the time how well they matched -- that information came to fruition in 1998 with IntCal98.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/3781/3206 (PDF)

Your argument, as per the LaMarche Frost ring argument, focusses on Bristlecone Pine Trees in general and proves that their tree rings are annual. This is something I have always agreed with, and so your continuous proof of this does not add to your argument. I do however admit that I asked for proof of this in the White Mountain locations, which you have now showed to me. ...

Good ...

... I feel this still misses the actual point I am trying to make that the OLDEST of these White Mountain trees are susceptible to multiple tree rings, which Libby seems to have confirmed through radiocarbon dating discrepancies. LaMarche's failure to deal with Libby's findings is two-fold, firstly he fails to actually explain if these oldest trees are included in his frost ring study and secondly he fails to explain Libby's carbon dating discrepancies found in these oldest trees.

Again, "Libby's findings" were essentially the mis-match between 14C 'age' calculation and the assumption that the 14C calculated age was more correct than the dendrochronology even though it depended on there being a constant level of 14C/12C in the atmosphere for thousands of years, while we KNOW it changes from year to year.

Continuing to raise 1963 questions against 2013 science when they were answered in the '80's and '90's is not trying to find the truth. This is a cognitive dissonance thing -- cherry picking evidence no matter how poor it is to try to resolve your dissonance when there are multiple consilient systems that have the virtually exact same correlations to 14C 'age' calculations.

Enjoy

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 92 by mindspawn, posted 12-09-2013 5:51 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 4:55 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19079
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 96 of 119 (713159)
12-10-2013 10:56 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by mindspawn
12-09-2013 5:51 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2c - dendrochronology pt 3
C) Tree Ring growth in dry harsh locations: In your Message 80, your quote stated: "it can be seen that at the field site where soil moisture was measured, moisture levels on dolomite were below the wilting coefficient on only two dates"
Wilting coefficient is defined as the minimal point of soil moisture the plant requires not to wilt.

Nope. Permanent Wilting Point is the point at which a plant cannot recover from wilting if there is moisture in the air, although it can still recover if moisture is added to the soil.

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

quote:
... If moisture decreases to this or any lower point a plant wilts and can no longer recover its turgidity when placed in a saturated atmosphere for 12 hours. The physical definition of the wilting point (symbolically expressed as θpwp or θwp) is defined as the water content at -1500 J/kg of suction pressure, or negative hydraulic head.

However, it is noted that the PWP values under field conditions are not constant for any given soil but are determined by the integrated effects of plant, soil, and atmospheric conditions.

Bold added.

Note first that at elevated locations the suction pressure would be affected by the difference in air pressure from sea level, and thus using a simplistic pressure calculation would be of questionable value even without considering the effects of soil (dolomite) and plants with deep roots.

Note second that the growing season was observed with actual formation of actual cambial cells and that it started in July and stopped in mid August, before these two points were reached ... because the trees are temperature sensitive rather than moisture sensitive. "LaMarche & Harlan: Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine" Message 89

In response in your message 88 you stated that the plants continued to respirate and continued to photosynthesize
"The saplings were still respiring and still photosythesizing, so the conditions for FIELD PWP were not observed"
I agree that they were still photosynthesizing, but you seem to miss the point that photosynthesizing and growing are two separate things. If I eat a few crumbs a day, I will still digest, I will still be feeding and using the carbohydrates for energy. But my net condition will be loss of weight and not growth.

Which will have ceased when the Permanent Wilting Point is reached, by definition, thus it is evident that the calculated PWP does not take into account the actual growing conditions.

Plants may breathe and photosynthesize, but this could be at wilting or stagnating levels, to actually grow requires more moisture because your own quote showed that in one 5 week period these trees reached wilting level TWICE despite photosynthesizing and respiring.

Again, (1) the PWP calculation obviously did not apply to the saplings tested that had not been brought to the test PWP conditions, and (2) field studies of actual growth patterns shows that growth ceased due to temperature sensitivity not moisture sensitivity, and finally (3) that the growth rings show characteristic sharp well defined ends to the growing season and large new cell growth at the beginning of the next year, NOT the fade-out-fade-in growth typical of false rings, as documented in "LaMarche & Harlan: Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine" Message 89

Repeating your criticism in spite of evidence contrary to it is not moving forward but clinging to false concepts because they help you resolve dissonance.

Note that recent thicker band growth recorded in Bristlecone pines coincide with warmer temperatures from climate changes.

I believe the information you have presented favors my argument that in especially harsh dry conditions trees can stop growing (its pretty obvious really).

Make that harsh dry, cold conditions ...

But you now say you agree that they are annual rings ...

Your argument, as per the LaMarche Frost ring argument, focusses on Bristlecone Pine Trees in general and proves that their tree rings are annual. This is something I have always agreed with, and so your continuous proof of this does not add to your argument. ...

underline added

So which is it? Are they typical annual growth rings from a species of tree that has adapted to growing in a high, harsh, dry, cold environment with a short season of temperatures above their lower growing limit or are they magical rings that just look like typical annual growth rings from a species of tree that has adapted to growing in a high, harsh, dry, cold environment with a short season of temperatures above their lower growing limit?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : u


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 92 by mindspawn, posted 12-09-2013 5:51 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 5:23 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19079
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


(1)
Message 97 of 119 (713210)
12-10-2013 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by mindspawn
12-09-2013 5:51 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2d - dendrochronology pt 4 quote mines and creationists
D) T-values of dendrochronology. http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html
" 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. 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. "

Your claim that we can have a 99.5% degree of confidence in tree ring chronologies was disproved by Yamaguchi who showed that those confidence levels can be reached even with proven incorrect dates. T-values of 1-2 would be acceptable, 3 debatable, but T-values of 4-6 are frankly unreliable, and this is what dendrochronology is based on.
Your counter argument : Another shyster.

Well I may have been premature, seeing as your reference was a shyster site, one that only presented a small excerpt of the paper ... and it looks like another instance of the good old game of quote mining and only telling half the story was involved.

Two questions --

(1) have you read the actual paper or just relied on the creatortionista cherry picked version?

(2) do you know how to calculate t-values? (hint: higher values are better matches)

Yamaguchi, D.K., Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series, Tree-Ring Bulletin vol 46 1986, p 47-54, http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol46_47-54.pdf

This paper is freely available, just not linked by your creationist source ... (heaven forfend you should actually read the actual paper eh?).

quote:
Yamaguchi, Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series

Abstract

Correlation analysis assumes that individual observations are statistically independent. Since tree-ring indices are typically serially correlated, cross-correlation coefficients computed between standardized tree-ring series may be spurious and inflated. To obtain valid estimates of these coefficients, ARIMA time series models should be fit to standardized series before cross-correlation analysis. ARIMA modelling was used successfully to obtain an unambiguous match between a "floating" series and a master chronology using program CROS.

Introduction

In recent years, many computer programs for analyzing cross correlation have been developed specifically for use in dendrochronologic research ...

While these programs are useful research tools, care must be exercised when interpreting cross-correlation coefficients they compute, because tree-ring indices are typically serially correlated ... Cross-correlation coefficients computed between serially-correlated series may be spurious and inflated ... This paper illustrates the problem by using a crossdating program ... to date a floating chronology from the Pacific Northwest ... CROS was selected for illustrative purposes because of its simplicity; however, the concepts presented in this example apply equally to other dendrochronologic computer programs that employ cross correlation.

CROS

CROS "slides" one floating standardized tree-ring series past another standardized (master) series and calculates correlation coefficients, or more correctly, cross-correlation coefficients, between the two series at all possible positions of significant overlap. ... The Student's t values permit interpretation of the cross-correlation coefficients. At each potential "bark" date (date of the last ring in the floating series), the t value is simply the cross-correlation coefficient divided by its standard error:

t = rxy(k)/srxy(k), (1)

where rxy(k) is the cross-correlation coefficient relating series x and y at lag k. The standard error of rxy(k) is calculated as:

srxy(k) = {(1- ( rxy(k))^2)/(N-2)}^1/2, (2)

where N is the number of years of overlap shared by both series at that position ... Generally, positions having t values greater than 3.2 and over 70 years of overlap are significant at the 0.001 level, and are considered likely matching positions.

Data

In 1984, several logs were found embedded in a pyroclastic-flow deposit west in the valley of the South Fork Toutle River of Mount St. Helens, Washington. ... Computerized cross-dating was therefore attempted using CROS. The 290 rings of this sample were measured to the nearest 0.01 mm, and standardized by fitting a negative-exponential curve to the data ... both series were tested for normality ... to ensure that the indices in at least one series are normally distributed, as required, to using the t statistic to evaluate correlation coefficients ...

CROS Results Using Ring-Width Indices

CROS identified 113 bark dates for sample SFT-349 as being "significant at the 0.001 level" over the A.D. 1411 - 2240 time interval. ... Minimum amounts of overlap for "significant" dates at the beginning and end of the master chronology we 87 and 75 years, respectively. ...

These results suggest that 113 of the 830 potential bark dates examined are likely matching positions. Clearly, 113 is too large a number of likely bark dates because less than one likely date should have arisen by chance in a time interval of this length, and only one can be the correct date. ... Where did CROS go awry?

To obtain the spurious and inflated "significant" Student's t values in Figure 1, the cross-correlation coefficients calculated by CROS must have been inflated, because N in the equation (1) is fixed for each cross-correlated position. This example illustrates the type of error that occurs when tree-ring series being cross-dated violate the assumption of serial independence. Only by cross-correlating autocorrelated series could the "significant" Student's t values in Figure 1 rise and fall in clusters over time ...

Comparison of Series A and B in Figure 2 shows how standardizing reduces the amount of autocorrelation in a ring-width series ... However, Figure 2 also shows that the ring-width indices of sample SFT-349 retain significant autocorrelation after standardization. ...

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

CROS Results After ARIMA Modeling

ARIMA time series models were individually fit to the standardized SFT-349 series and the Lava Beds site chronology ...

CROS was then run between these residuals and those of the Lava Beds chronology. A single bark date -- A.D. 1647 -- was found to have a t value significant at the 0.001 level (t = 5.05, compared to its prior inflated value of 6.91). This date is consistent with stratigraphic bracketing of the date of death of tree SFT-349. Further, when this date is assigned to this tree's last formed ring, it is supported by both graphical (Figure 3) and visual crossdating.

Discussion

This example illustrates that spurious and inflated cross-correlation coefficients arise when they are computed between autocorrelated tree-ring series. ...

The present study also shows that fitting ARIMA models to the tree-ring series improves the effectiveness of their analysis by cross correlation. ...


Note that applying additional investigation techniques the number of possible match sites was narrowed down to one and only one date.

This would typically be what scientists do when confronted by seeming problems of multiple matches, and using this ARIMA modeling approach improves the cross-dating process whether there are multiple matches or not.

The creationist lie is to tell half the story -- the problem identified by actual scientists (in this case dendrochronologists) ...

... and omitting to tell the other half of the story -- how the problem was solved.

Net result NO multiple matches in the end, only ONE possible match, and very high accuracy and precision in the final result.

Your claim that we can have a 99.5% degree of confidence in tree ring chronologies was disproved by Yamaguchi

False, as you can see above, where Yamaguchi ended up with 99.99% accuracy and precision, and his paper would not apply when you have three or more very long chronologies to compare, that the problem he encountered had more to do with autocorrelation (a statistical problem) than with miss-correlations.

So, yes the overall accuracy and precision of these three chronologies remains uncontested at over 99.5%.

Please note that this is the FOURTH long post replying to your grasping at straws and running down rabbit holes, and this is only the dendrochronology parts that you spread all over your SUMMARY.

If you are going to complain about the number of replies I make, then I suggest you reign in the number of straws you grab at and focus on single issues -- preferably with actually providing evidence that they apply to the instance at hand, build your case carefully with focus and conciseness, instead of making another bunch of rabbit-holes to chase down like this one, because - frankly - you are ASKING for this level of response by your approach.

For instance, I would hope that if you had actually read the Yamaguchi paper that you would not have made the comments you have regarding its contents, you could have saved yourself some trouble and time and not gotten tangled up in erroneous information.

Enjoy.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by mindspawn, posted 12-09-2013 5:51 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 5:50 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19079
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 98 of 119 (713214)
12-10-2013 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by mindspawn
12-09-2013 5:51 AM


Re: SUMMARY -- reply 3a: Lake Suigetsu pt 1
A) Lake Suigetsu, you went to great lengths to explain how the river sediment is suspended and therefore deposits seasonally ...

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

... and then in post 87 you quoted contradictory information regarding how they chose the Lake due to the LACK of suspended sediment, and your quote actually supports my position:
" The result of this is that the waters of Lake Suigetsu have very little suspended sediment"

So you are easily confused? Let's see if we can clear up this muddy thinking Message 87 (material quoted from website):

quote:
... For example, the Hasu River enters Lake Mikata where the sediments suspended in the river, even during a large flood, will fall out. ...

This would be rocks, gravel, sand and other large particles, the type of sediment that you keep suggesting would provide multiple deposits from rainstorms ...

Clay would, of course remain suspended through the turbulent process of run-off into Lake Mikata ... and some would certainly flow into Lake Suigetsu.

quote:
... 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…

Note that "very little suspended sediment" would include clay, but not rocks, gravel and sand ...

Note that your pet scenario of "floods, large storms, etc." causing the clay layers are specifically ruled out.

... and the dust/sediment between the layers is of a regular and non-seasonal nature, as per your post 87 "Input to the sediment on the bottom mostly comes from material falling into the lake from the air (leaves, pollen, volcanic ash, dust) ...

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

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

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

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

quote:
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.

quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clay: Clay is a general term including many combinations of one or more clay minerals with traces of metal oxides and organic matter.[1] ... Clay minerals are typically formed over long periods of time by the gradual chemical weathering of rocks, usually silicate-bearing, by low concentrations of carbonic acid and other diluted solvents. ...

Carbonic acid is H2CO3 ...

quote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siderite: ... In sedimentary rocks, siderite commonly forms at shallow burial depths and its elemental composition is often related to the depositional environment of the enclosing sediments.[4]" ...

The siderite is (Fe,Mn)CO3 ...

or in other words, the siderite formed after deposition of the sediments on the bottom ... from the dust and clay ...

The lack of seasonal sedimentation fits in with my point ...

misunderstanding something does not fit any unsupported claim.

... that the alternating layers of diatom density are largely caused by regular die-offs during the diatom blooms. Diatoms do have blooms, they do often have more than one annual die off, ...

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

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

Got any EVIDENCE?

... or from differential growth of organisms (algae) over the year."

Indeed.

Note: the sediment comes from dust and ...

... Clay - at very low rates due to the low level of suspended solids (which can only be clays at this point)

"differential growth of organisms (algae)
Diatoms are algae.

Glad you figured that part out.

Enjoy


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by mindspawn, posted 12-09-2013 5:51 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 6:49 AM RAZD has responded

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 7192
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 99 of 119 (713219)
12-10-2013 7:08 PM


Varves vs. Flood Deposits
I have always found this image to be very useful in showing the difference between flood deposits and varves:


From here:
http://www4.uwsp.edu/...icipants/dutch/vtrips/scablands0.htm

These varves are found in the Channeled Scablands where there were numerous, catastrophic floods from outflow of glacial Lake Missoula. In the middle of the photo you see fine grained sediments consistent with slow deposition of clay particles. Above and below the varves are flood sediments which are coarser. As anyone can see, varves and flood deposits are easily differentiated.


  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19079
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 100 of 119 (713221)
12-10-2013 9:03 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by mindspawn
12-09-2013 5:51 AM


Re: SUMMARY -- reply 3b: Lake Suigetsu pt 2
F) Perceived consilience: Lake Suigetsu

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

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

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

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

So why do they match with such accuracy?

1) Many lakes have a definite annual/seasonal deposition character, the use of the unique location of Lake Suigetsu with its algae related layers and its lack of attachment to the local river does not add strength to the seasonal requirement of the layers. Its damning to carbon dating that this is one of the few locations used as verification of carbon dating when many other lakes do have seasonal deposition.

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

2) Consilience with older volcanoes etc is obvious due to the carbon dating of those volcanoes matching a location chosen for its carbon dating match.

Just to be clear it is not the volcanoes that are carbon dated, but organic matter above and below the tuffs that bracket their deposition in time.

They are dated from entirely different samples of organic matter from entirely different locations ... and those carbon dates and volcanic tuffs correlate in both locations why?

Because the 14C/12C levels are the same whether one is in Lake Suigetsu or one is in Ohnuma Moor in the Chugoku Mountains, Western Japan ...

Or is it magic coincidence? How does that work?

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

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

... and would have a much better fit if the lakes' dates were reduced by an approximate factor of 11. ...

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

... For example the unknown ash layer at 2800 years ago would be re-dated to about 573AD close to the Aso volcano of 553bc, and the K-Ah volcano of 6500 years ago would be re-dated to about 910AD closely matching the 915AD date of the Towado eruption. ...

You do realize that just mixing and matching volcanic eruptions doesn't work -- each volcano has a signature element distributions in their ash that identifies the volcano from the ash -- this is why they KNOW that the K-Ah ash layer is from the K-Ah volcano ... Kikai-Akahoya:

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

quote:
The northwestern part of Hyogo Prefecture is covered with Pleistocene tephra layers erupted from Daisen Volcano about 80 km west of the area, along with the widespread tephra layers like Kikai-Akahoya (K-Ah: Machida and Arai, 1978) and Aira-Tanzwa (AT: Machida and Arai, 1976) Volcanic Ash Beds derived from calderas in southern Kyushu (Katoh et al., 2001). At the eastern foot of Daisen Volcano, Shitano-hoki Volcanic Ash Beds (Sh), Odori Pyroclastic Flow Deposits (Od), Ueno-hoki Volcanic Ash Beds (Uh), Daisen Misen Pumice Beds (MsP), in ascending stratigraphic order, have been recognized in the Daisen Upper Volcanic Ash Formation above the AT horizon (Machida and Arai, 1979; Tsukui, 1984; Okada and Ishiga, 2000). Among these tephra layers, Sh and MsP were newly identified in the moor sediments at Ohnuma Moor in addition to the already found K-Ah and AT (Katoh et al., 2006).

Scientists don't make stuff up -- they find out stuff.

The perceived consilience is with cross checking with carbon dated or Th-Ur dated eruptions against a lake chosen for its carbon dating consilience despite the seasonal nature of silt deposition in other lakes.

And yet the matches are still there in stunning 3D technavision ... still unexplained by this furious handwaving and denial.

Please explain how this is just a matter of perception:

Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation

quote:

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

Hmmm?

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

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

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

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

So the German pine chronology is tethered to the German oak with an error of +/-20 years at ~11,900 calendar years is +/-0.17% error and the total error of the Cariaco Basin chronology of +/-30 years at ~14,800 calendar years is +/-0.20% error.

How does that happen by chance? Are you now going to magically change the Cariaco Basin varves with spring tides? How are you going to change them by a factor of 11 so that they still match your highly technical and detailed revision of the Lake Suigetsu varves AND the German pine tree rings ... when you haven't explained the consilience between either of those yet ... what mechanisms cause these three different systems to match with such accuracy and still be wrong?

Demonstrate it mindspawn, show what happens in each chronology, what the mechanism is for each one to be wrong by a factor of 11, and show how it happens to cause a near perfect match.

I'm waiting ...

... and this is enough for now.

Enjoy.


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


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by mindspawn, posted 12-09-2013 5:51 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 10:03 AM RAZD has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 101 of 119 (713234)
12-11-2013 2:28 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by RAZD
12-09-2013 10:37 PM


Re: SUMMARY -- reply 1: consilience
Thanks mindspawn, I'll try to slow down ...

See it as a mental challenge to make your points more succint. It takes intelligence to find the core issues amongst the tons of available detail. Lengthy posts do not contribute to good discussion, this is internet fact. People including me, just lose interest. You can then gladly feel you have won the debate, when in truth you are merely making this exchange boring in its detail, and boring in its lack of mental challenge. I do not like boring debates and have no problem "losing" this debate just because I find it too detailed and boring.

You really have not even begun to tackle the beginning of the consilience issue. You have failed to explain why

why Bristlecone pine chronology #2 matches Bristlecone pine chronology #1
for every single year but two in over 5,000 years of record,
the locations of two missing years were identified by matching each ring from the beginning until each discrepancy was found
that when tree rings of zero width were inserted in those places, that they then continued to match ring for ring year for year after each insertion for the whole length of chronology #2 (the shorter chronology) -- a 100% match, TOTAL AGREEMENT,
that chronology #1 showed very narrow bands in those years, narrow annual type bands not false ring type bands,
that the data from the intervening years - 18 - between the modern ends of these chronologies showed NOT ONE single extra ring but several trees had 1 missing ring, making the occurrence of missing rings a much much higher probability than extra rings (1/18 = 0.0556; 0/18 = 0 ... and 0.0556/0 = ∞ ... just sayin' ... )

why the two different independent oak chronologies agree with near 100% (>99.5%) accuracy at over 8,000 years. These two chronologies have also been compared year for year and ring by ring shortly after each was constructed (see A Slice Through Time - Dendrochronology and Precision Dating by M.G.L. Baillie chapter 2 "Oak dendrochronology comes of age" -- yes I can email it to you).
why the two oak chronologies agree with the two Bristlecone pine chronologies year for year and ring by ring for over 5,000 years, ring for ring and year by year,
why the two oak chronologies agree with the older Bristlecone pine chronology year for year and ring by ring for over 7,600 years, ring for ring and year by year, with an error of only 37 years, an error of only 0.48% ...
why that error is apparently due to the Bristlecone pine chronology being too you -- missing 37 rings near the end (where sample number is low and chance of error increases)
why the three long chronologies also match for 14C/12C levels year by year and ring by ring
why the Lake Suigetsu varves could match up to the tree ring chronologies with a high degree of accuracy and precision, showing similar 14C/12C levels for the same ages

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

There is more to this consilience issue than you may realize.

If two chronologies agree there is a high degree of consilience ...
If three chronologies agree there are three different equally high degrees of consilience, so we have 3 times the confidence provided by a match-up of two chronologies, and ...
If four chronologies agree there are six different equally high degrees of consilience, so we have 6 times the confidence provided by a match-up of two chronologies, and ...

Each time I add a consilience the work you need to do to explain it away with hand waving random occurrences, mistakes and gross errors is compounded ... because they WILL match if they are accurate and precise and they WILL NOT match if they are erroneous in any way.

Note that I will respond to each part of your summary with a separate post so that it doesn't become excessively long: one of the problems with replying to posts with rabbit holes, misrepresentations and erroneous information is that it takes a lot of information to fill in and correct, and this can get tedious if I put it all in one post.

Please read the information in LaMarche & Harlan: Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine (Msg=89) and LaMarche & Hirschboek: Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions (Msg=90) as they should answer your questions on dendrochronology and the accuracy of the Bristlecone pine chronologies. Note I can also email you copies of these papers.

But mostly I want to see you address the consiliences

I have already addressed large parts of the consilience, you seem to be hand waving my explanations away. I prefer to deal with your best points head-on.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by RAZD, posted 12-09-2013 10:37 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 5:51 PM mindspawn has responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 102 of 119 (713236)
12-11-2013 4:22 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by RAZD
12-10-2013 12:13 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2a - dendrochronology pt 1
I don't think you really understand the meaning of consilience. You either have two independent systems that agree or you don't. There is nothing perceived about whether you have it or not.

IF they agree they demonstrate that each independent system is more likely to be correct than incorrect.

IF the independent systems are not correct then the random occurrences, errors and mistakes that would be needed to make them appear consilient would be massive and astounding.

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

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

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

You do realize, don't you that Libby is the founder of 14C dating methodology and he is talking about the first comparison of 14C dating with a dendrochronology ... what he is saying is that the 14C 'ages' don't match the dendro calendar ages ... and this is correct.

But this is OLD NEWS, circa 1950, and I don't think you will find anyone that thinks they should be the same ages now because we KNOW that the amounts of 14C in the atmosphere vary over time.

That said, however, there is still general agreement with 14C dating showing consistently older dates for older samples, and this correlation (not consilience) is the same for all three long dendrochronologies.

That these three chronologies have the same correlation to 14C 'age' means that these correlations are highly consilient from the three chronologies (3 times the confidence of just two matches).

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

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

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

Could be does not mean is. For instance your shyster showed (you anyway) that he could trick the system by intentionally mismatching tree rings using t values of 4 .

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

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

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

Let's do a simple thought experiment ...

If I classify all tree ring thicknesses into four categories, from 0 to the maximum thickness, tmax, assuming a normal distribution, as follows:

the thinnest one quarter thicknesses of the data
A to 0.5tmax
0.5tmax to D where D is
the thickest one quarter thicknesses of the data
Thus A, B, C and D are equally probable at any one ring picked.

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

You can pick any ring on either, so let's say it is an A ring, you match A1 to A2 ... obviously you could do this many times ..
Now the probability that the next rings will also match is 1 in 4 ... if they are completely random and unrelated sequences ... 25% ... so you will still be able to find a number of such cross correlations.

The probability that the next ring will match is (1/4)x(1/4) or 1 in 16 ... 6.25% ... and you can still find several such instances.

The probability that the fourth ring will match is (1/4)^3 or 1 in 64 ... 1.56% ... and your likelihood of finding matches is getting small

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

If you match 5,000 rings the probability of this occurring through random chance and error is (1/4)^(5000-1) ... or 1 in

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

If you are unable to illustrate an entire sequence, then your argument is based on hope not fact. This is a point we will never agree on, because dendrochronologists seem satisfied with low T-values and cross checks with carbon or Thorium dating, this system is faulty if carbon dating is faulty.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 12:13 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 2:02 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 103 of 119 (713237)
12-11-2013 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by RAZD
12-10-2013 10:00 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2b - dendrochronology pt 2
Curiously what you choose to believe has little measurable effect on reality.

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

Incredibly this near absolute consilience in the mis-match between carbon-14 'age' calculations and actual calendar age is a strong indicator that some other variable in involved that has not been accounted for in the calculated age ... it is a simple formula ...

(14C/12C in a sample today) = (14C/12C in the sample when formed)x(1/2)^(age/half-life)
Just solve for age because we can measure the (14C/12C in a sample today) with high precision and accuracy, we know the half-life of 14C from numerous laboratory studies, and we know the 14C/12C in the sample when formed ... oh, wait ...

... we actually know that the amount of 14C/12C in the atmosphere changes due to earth's magnetic field, solar sun cycles, and changes in the balance of carbon between the atmosphere and the ocean and with plants.

Could it be that this is the cause of the discrepancy between radiocarbon 'age' and calendar age?

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

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

Questioned in 1967 ... and answered in the '80's and '90's ... ... why do creationists hold old discarded ideas with such high regard?

Check out "A Slice Through Time - Dendrochronology and Precision Dating" by M.G.L. Baillie from your local library and read chapter 2 ...

http://www.amazon.com/...ochronology-Precision/dp/0713476540
quote:
A Slice Through Time - Dendrochronology and Precision Dating by M.G.L. Baillie
Publication Date: June 2, 1997 | ISBN-10: 0713476540 | ISBN-13: 978-0713476545 | Edition: 1
The dramatic development of European oak chronologies over the last ten years parallels and supplements the bristlecone-pine chronology in the United States. Dendrochronologists can now provide a wood sample - a time capsule of biological material - for any calender date over the last seven millennia from two continents.
For archaeologists, resigned to the imprecision of radiocarbon dating, the implications are profound. For the first time it is possible to establish precise dates for prehistoric events. Similarly, we have an independent and scientifically objective way of testing historical accounts, such as the traditional Egyptian chronology. Equally fundamental are the insights provided by the related disciplines of dendroecology and dendroclimatology. The Bronze Age eruption of Santorini and the AD 540 `event' are explored as fascinating case studies.
Drawing on a further decade of research by himself and others, Mike Baille not only brings the pre-1980 story up to date, but demonstrates the wide and exciting applications of this comparatively new science.
Or I can email you a copy of chapter 2: Oak dendrochronology comes of age.

quote:
Tertiary replication of the European oak chronologies
With the announcement of a consensus 7272-year European oak chronology in 1984 the first major phase of European dendrochronology was completed. Oak chronologies of comparable length to Ferguson’s bristlecone pine chronology were available and represented an equivalent standard for the purpose of radiocarbon calibration. ...
... Tree-ring studies, like other branches of science, are ongoing and in 1984 we witnessed one of those examples of parallel work which are so frequent in the history of science. Just when it was needed, and unknown to any of the Belfast, Koln or Stuttgart workers, Leuschner and Delorme, at Gottingen, published a note on their completion of a separate German chronology from AD 785 to 4008 BC (Leuschner and Delorme 1984). Here then was the opportunity for an independent test of the Belfast chronology. ... The results of running the various sections of the Belfast prehistoric chronology against the independent Gottingen chronology confirmed that both prehistoric chronologies were in precise synchronization. Despite the distances involved, the original Long Chronology gave t = 8.8 at 949 BC, Swan Carr gave t = 8.45 at 381 BC and even Garry Bog 2 gave t = 3.6 at 229 BC (Brown et al. 1986). Since that time numerous additional sections of English prehistoric chronology have shown consistent matching against both the Belfast and Gottingen chronologies ... the Gottingen chronology provided the ultimate tertiary replication necessary to prove the European oak complex.
Note the reference to tertiary replication -- they were not satisfied until they had the same information from outside independent sources that showed their chronology was consistent/consilient with others.

Note that one of the purposes for making the chronology was to test the Bristlecone pine chronology to 14C 'age' correlation ... would it be the same or would it be different? They didn't know at the time how well they matched -- that information came to fruition in 1998 with IntCal98.

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/3781/3206 (PDF)

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

Again, "Libby's findings" were essentially the mis-match between 14C 'age' calculation and the assumption that the 14C calculated age was more correct than the dendrochronology even though it depended on there being a constant level of 14C/12C in the atmosphere for thousands of years, while we KNOW it changes from year to year.

Continuing to raise 1963 questions against 2013 science when they were answered in the '80's and '90's is not trying to find the truth. This is a cognitive dissonance thing -- cherry picking evidence no matter how poor it is to try to resolve your dissonance when there are multiple consilient systems that have the virtually exact same correlations to 14C 'age' calculations.

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

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 10:00 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 2:42 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 104 of 119 (713239)
12-11-2013 5:23 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by RAZD
12-10-2013 10:56 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2c - dendrochronology pt 3
Nope. Permanent Wilting Point is the point at which a plant cannot recover from wilting if there is moisture in the air, although it can still recover if moisture is added to the soil.

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

I didn't realize you had moved onto a discussion about Permanent wilting points, sorry for missing this. I believe permanent wilting points are irrelevant to our discussion (your strawman argument).

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

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

Make that harsh dry, cold conditions ...

But you now say you agree that they are annual rings ...

Your argument, as per the LaMarche Frost ring argument, focusses on Bristlecone Pine Trees in general and proves that their tree rings are annual. This is something I have always agreed with, and so your continuous proof of this does not add to your argument. ...
underline added

So which is it? Are they typical annual growth rings from a species of tree that has adapted to growing in a high, harsh, dry, cold environment with a short season of temperatures above their lower growing limit or are they magical rings that just look like typical annual growth rings from a species of tree that has adapted to growing in a high, harsh, dry, cold environment with a short season of temperatures above their lower growing limit?

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 10:56 AM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 2:51 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
mindspawn
Member (Idle past 217 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012


Message 105 of 119 (713240)
12-11-2013 5:50 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by RAZD
12-10-2013 4:55 PM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2d - dendrochronology pt 4 quote mines and creationists
Well I may have been premature, seeing as your reference was a shyster site, one that only presented a small excerpt of the paper ... and it looks like another instance of the good old game of quote mining and only telling half the story was involved.

Two questions --

(1) have you read the actual paper or just relied on the creatortionista cherry picked version?

(2) do you know how to calculate t-values? (hint: higher values are better matches)

Yamaguchi, D.K., Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series, Tree-Ring Bulletin vol 46 1986, p 47-54, http://www.treeringsociety.org/TRBTRR/TRBvol46_47-54.pdf
This paper is freely available, just not linked by your creationist source ... (heaven forfend you should actually read the actual paper eh?).

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

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

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

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

For instance, I would hope that if you had actually read the Yamaguchi paper that you would not have made the comments you have regarding its contents, you could have saved yourself some trouble and time and not gotten tangled up in erroneous information.

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

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 4:55 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 3:23 PM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Prev123456
7
8Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017