Statistical analysis of tree rings

Curiously I cannot find that statement in any of the three links Jon provided. Can you provide your source?Unpublished does not mean invalid nor does it mean that the data is not reviewed. What it usually means is that it is part of ongoing research, and the data is being made available early, which would be consistent with it being available in the data bank for you to access and critique. Where? All I see is data sets and articles that refute your position. This includes creationist articles such as: AiG article: "Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology"

quote:

---

The 8,000-year-long BCP chronology appears to be correctly crossmatched, and there is no evidence that bristlecone pines can put on more than one ring per year. The best approach for collapsing this chronology, one that takes into the account the evidence from C-14 dates, is one that factors the existence of migrating ring-disturbing events. Much more must be learned about this phenomenon before this hypothesis can be developed further.

---

In other words they can find no mechanism to cause the tree ring chronology to be anything but correct.Here's another one: CreationResearch.org abstract: "Tree-Ring Dating and Multiple Ring Growth Per Year"

quote:

---

There presently exist several long dendrochronologies, each comprised of about 10,000 individual growth-rings. These are examined for the possibility of multiple ring growth per year in their earliest portions due to unusual climatic conditions following the Flood. It is found that the tree-ring/radiocarbon data are contrary to the suggestion of multiple ring growth. Since it seems that the Flood must have occurred before the oldest rings of these series grew, the implication is that the Flood must have occurred more than 10,000 years ago.

---

No evidence of any false correlations or mechanism to reduce the data in a way that can fit young earth scenarios.And here's another one: Biblical Chronologist.org article: "Are tree-ring chronologies reliable?"

quote:

---

An Independent Check

​

Early in the history of the science of dendrochronology, a tree-ring chronology using bristlecone pines from the White Mountains of California was developed. Separate dendrochronologies were then developed, also in America, using other types of trees, such as Douglas fir. These separate chronologies did not extend as far back in time because these types of trees are shorter-lived. However, they did agree with the bristlecone chronology as far back as it could be checked by the shorter chronologies. That is, rings of the same putative dendrochronological age were found to contain the same amount of radiocarbon, and to give the same pattern of fluctuations over time.

​

...

​

European Tree-ring Chronology

​

While American scientists were building bristlecone pine and Douglas fir chronologies, European scientists were actively building a very long tree-ring chronology using oak trees. ... The European oak chronology provided an excellent check of the American dendrochronologies. The two were obviously independent. Ring-width patterns are determined by local environmental factors, such as temperature and rainfall. The patterns in America could not bias the work on patterns in Europe, because the specimens came from two different local climates, separated by an ocean. The scientists worked independently of one another. Also, oak trees and bristlecone pine or Douglas fir trees are very different. Bristlecones, for example, are evergreens which grow very slowly, at high altitude, in a cold, arid environment, and live for thousands of years. None of these things are true of the oaks used in the European chronology. They are deciduous, grow relatively rapidly, at low altitudes, in relatively warm, moist environments, and live for only hundreds of years.

​

If the science of dendrochronology was characterized by significant random error, the American and European tree-ring chronologies would certainly disagree with each other. In fact, a comparison of the European and American chronologies showed very close correlation. The pattern of radiocarbon in the rings showed a maximum divergence, even at very old ages, of only around 40 years. This objective, quantitative test of dendrochronology showed it to be reliable and accurate.

​

...

​

Multiple Rings Per Year?

​

These checks show that tree-ring chronologies are not subject to significant random error. However, some critics of dendrochronology go on to suggest that trees in ancient history grew multiple rings per year, perhaps due to Noah's Flood, for example. A number of evidences argue strongly against such a claim.

​

...

​

Third is an argument which is perhaps the most definitive falsification of the idea that trees grew more than one ring per year in ancient history. Here is a greatly condensed version of this argument.

​

Our sun occasionally goes through periods of quiescence. During these periods few sunspots are seen on the sun's surface and the solar wind is reduced. This lets more cosmic radiation into the upper atmosphere of the earth, which allows more radiocarbon to be produced in the atmosphere. These periods of quiescence occur in two varieties, one lasting an average of 51 years, and the other lasting an average of 96 years.

​

How does this relate to tree-rings? During these periods of quiescence, atmospheric radiocarbon concentrations are higher. This difference in radiocarbon concentration is recorded in tree rings which are growing during the period of quiescence. If trees were growing two or three rings per year at the time one of these episodes occurred, two or three times as many rings would be affected than if trees were only growing one ring per year. In other words, if trees were growing one ring per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect 51 tree rings. If trees were growing three rings per year, a 51-year period of solar quiescence would affect about 153 rings. Thus, a record of ring growth per year is preserved in the number of rings affected by these periods of solar quiescence.

​

In fact, at least 16 of these episodes have occurred in the last 10,000 years.These 16 episodes are more or less evenly distributed throughout those 10,000 years. In all cases, the number of rings affected is grouped around 51 or 96 rings. Thus it is clear that, for at least the last 10,000 years, trees have been growing only one ring per year. The suggestion that dendrochronology is invalidated by growth of multiple rings per year is thus falsified.

---

It all comes back to the correlations within the data contained in the tree rings.Thus we see that the methodology used by dendrochronologists is validated by the independent data from other chronologies and from 14C/12C content within the rings.Your method has not been able to show any such correlation for verification of your methodology - why do you suppose that is? And I guess the creationists that wrote, and published, the articles above, are also part of the conspiracy?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) • • •

So they have published! My Bad!And honestly too! My even badder!Of course, they have moved the flood back to before 10,000 years as well.But they have also established both C14 dating and dendrochronology over a wide time frame (about 20% of C14 range) which is strong support for dates over a 50,000 year time frame.Any guesses as to Daniel's reaction? Equal honesty?

And I assume the same correlation will hold through the Lake Suigetsu varve data as well - it would be interesting to pursue on another thread for the lake varves.Looking at just the issue of statistical analysis of tree ring chronologies, the 14C data is secondary to the initial methodology and best serves as a back-check on consistency of application of the methodology. This is due to the fact that, even without the issue of the validity of 14C dating, the actual raw data levels of 14C/12C correlate with these solar cycles as well as having the same levels across the tree ring lineages. We don't need to convert them to ages for these correlations of be important validation of the methodology of the dendrochronologists. Sorry, I'm not a "seer" (or a "biased guesser") in spite of what some people think.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

---

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) • • •

Ho Ho Ho.In the absence of any evidence to interpret of course you are a biased guesser. As are we all. How could it possibly be otherwise? Message 329