Age Correlations and an Old Earth

First off, indented sections in the original post are quoted from the referenced material. Nope, don't know {of \ about} fossilized bristle cones. The ring chronology goes back 8,000 years and the oldest living is 4789 so the other 3211+/- must come from overlapping but dead specimens in the same area to be consistent. They also say it goes back to 10,000 years so there must be a gap at 8,000 in the specimens available. They get the actual age from counting the varves (alternate diatom and clay layers = 1 varve = 1 year due to die-off of diatoms in winter and subsequent covering of dead diatoms with clay silt percipitate in winter). Mixed in the layers are organic specimens that they dated with C-14 to get the "C-14 years" date. By graphing the two they developed a calibration graph that can now be used to convert "C-14 years" to actual years. This takes out the (known about slight) variations in C-14 due to different solar cycles, ozone concentrations and the like.This is the calibration curve: Each of the points represents a C-14 sample and the line represents a 1:1 relationship, and verticle lines through the points would represent margins of error in the samples.Hope that answers your questions.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Apparently. But the upper core data may well be published elsewhere, like maybe a paper by Kitagawa footnoted in the Science paper. Regardless, the German and Finnish tree-ring records are continuous to 10 to 11,000 years back - the Holocene is pretty well covered. A good, readable book from one of the heavy hitters in the field. You'll enjoy it. I think I have some references when you are ready.

Great chart. I got the lake concept down. Very satisfied with the science. The chart makes it appear that a concentration of activity occurs between, say 7 and 15 k years. Is that true? If so, is there an explaination?Thanks Razd, rickroseIn Quest of Truth

Great, I'm wanting to progress beyond the lake. Just in for a shallow swim.rickrose

I would take that to mean more viable specimens that could be used for C-14 dating. Some older ones may not have enough volume to give good dates (it is a proportion thing).{{add by edit}} there were also more than one core, but only one went the full 75 m so the other cores would have provided more specimens in the shallower varves.{{end edit}}Glad you like.[This message has been edited by RAZD, 04-28-2004]

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

The varve layers would reach the "floor" of the lake. There does appear to be a discontinuity in the early data that is not fully explained, and while it looks like there were maybe 3 data points before 4350 the varve data is silent on that point in what is given.I would look to the (several) denrochronology lines for that information, but particularly the Bristlecone Pine's oldest living resident: "The oldest known living specimen is the "Methuselah" tree, sampled by Schulman and Harlan in the White Mountains of CA, for which 4789 years are verified by crossdating."

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

Razd, below is part of the initial quote for this thread.Carbon 14 Radiometric Dating
The Carbon 14 (C-14) data not only corroborates the tree ring and lake varve data, but the measurement system is validated by these studies (especially the varve study) as accurate.I must pick this apart if I am going to trust the dating method. The tree rings seem to prove only the age of the trees. I couldn't find anything on the bristle cone page that shows trees were used to calibrate c14. Something living can't be c14ed. O.K. so the dead trees were carbon dated. But calibration by the trees? Can't even find a reference to it. Would you mind pointing to article of how trees were used to calibrate c14 so I can feel confident for the first 8k yrs. This is critical for me because the lake has a hole -- some say even for the first 11 k yrs, as you probably read above. Please recall that earth age is not in dispute with me. Neither is the age of most life on it. Nevertheless, I would like to eventually work my way back in time.Summary: Need specific reference to c14 calibration for first 8,000 to 11,000 yrs as lake doesn't provide it. Tree calibration reference doesn't seem to be on this site as some thought it was.Thanks,rickroseIn Quest of Knowledge[This message has been edited by rickrose, 04-29-2004]

There are probably lots of references out there, but here's one that I like: http://www.rlaha.ox.ac.uk/orau/calibration.html#tree_rings--Percy

In the Lake Varve article it has this graph and reference: (bold added for emphasis, italic in the original, I assume that "" refers to the filled in o's).This is the initial allignment between the two systems with enough overlap (~3000 years) to show consistency in climactic fluctuations. This is perhaps the weakest link in all of the data, but the convergence of C-14 and dendrochronology and the ice cores (etc) make this allignment a strong case in my mind (one has the front door and the other has the back door if you will). There is also a paragraph before the graph that discusses this as well giving a reference for the tree data: Not sure it is available on-line (could not find it), but there are other references to it (and the calibration curve is shown in the first) at:http://www.cio.phys.rug.nl/HTML-docs/Verslag/97/CD-01.htm
and
http://www.radiocarbon.org/Journal/v40n3/editorial.htmlThe first also mentions some coral C-14 calibrations that corroborate the data. The later is an editorial in the Journal in question and it looks like they only have on-line articles from Volume 42, Issue 1, 1 May 2000 on. In the case of the trees bits of the trees themselves are dated by C-14.Good questions

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

thanks, read reference. The more I investigate the subject, the more complex things appear.rickroseIn Quest of Truth

Read references. I too am limited by my ability to understand.rickrose

Since they seem to have disappeared back a lot of posts ago could you re-refer to them please. Generally your post would be considered bad form in any case.If you can't understand your own references or the rebuttals why do you think we should bother to consider anything you are putting forward.There are occasions (cosmology for example) where I have to just point and say "What he said." However, I don't pretend to have won any argument with that. If you think that you can't understand the arguments then maybe you should go with the side that has those who spend their lives understanding the issues and are the vast majority of the 'experts".

Ned, there must be a misunderstanding. I'm not trying go win an argument.rickrose

Oh, what is your intention then?(added by edit)I see, below, that I may have misjudged. I'm sorry.[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 04-30-2004]

Learning, I would thinkm, Ned. The references mentioned were Percy's in message 158 and mine in 159. New information, sometimes hard.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}