Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
121 online now:
AZPaul3, kjsimons, PaulK, Phat (4 members, 117 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,276 Year: 6,388/6,534 Month: 581/650 Week: 119/232 Day: 4/54 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

There are three (3) distinct dendrochronologies, Irish Oak, German Oak and Pine, and Bristlecone Pine from the White Mountains in Nevada. Your "main problem with carbon dating" has been answered by showing that tree ring calculation is 100% accurate and precise for 1816 the "year without a summer" and slightly over 99.5% accurate and precise for a bit over 8,000 years of record; by showing that the oak dendrochronologies are not water limited as you claimed, and that the major source of water for the Bristlecone Pine comes from snow-melt in the spring, thus causing annual rings in all three very consilient records. Between the three dendrochronologies the greatest difference is between the Bristlecone Pine and the two (2) oak dendrochronologies, where the pine chronology is 37 years younger than the oak chronologies at the 8,000 year mark. This indicates that the pine chronology is more likely to be missing some annual rings than to have rainfall rings.

I can go into this in greater detail if you still have trouble accepting this.

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

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

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

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

Coyote showed you the graph so that you could see the consilience of data and your answer was to question each item and make up a fantasy about precipitation sensitivity. That is chasing rabbit holes.

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

So challenge the dendrochronologies with some modicum of understanding of the work that has gone into them, not with uneducated fantasy.

You can start with these papers:

Reimer, P.J., Baillie, M. G. L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Cutler, K. B., Paul E Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C. B., Reimer, R. W., Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., Talamo, S., Taylor, F. W., van der Plicht, J., Weyhenmeyer, C. E., 2004, INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP. Radiocarbon 46, No 3, pages 1029-1058(30).
Friedrich, M., Remmele, S., Kromer, B., Hofmann, J., Spurk, M., Kaiser, K.F., Orcel, C., Kuppers, M., 2004. The 12,460-year Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring chronology from central Europe—a unique annual record for radiocarbon calibration and paleoenvironment reconstructions. Radiocarbon 46, No 3, pages 1111–1122.
Articles in Radiocarbon can be found here:
(opens with latest issue articles - go to sidebar to navigate the archive by issue)
Issue 46 No 3 index is at https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/.../issue/view/210/showToc
The abstract for the first paper (INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP) is here with the Full PDF Download Here

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

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

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

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

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Increasing temperature at high elevations is likely a prominent factor in the modern unprecedented level of growth for Pinus longaeva at these sites."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

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

Lake Suigetsu varves
A 75-m long continuous core (Lab code, SG) and four short piston cores were taken from the center of the lake in 1991 and 1993. The sediments are laminated in nearly the entire core sections and are dominated by darkcolored clay with white layers resulting from spring-season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin laminations or varves. The sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform, typically 1.2 mm/year during the Holocene and 0.61 mm/year during the Glacial. The bottom age of the SG core is estimated to be older than 100,000 years, close to the beginning of the last interglacial period.

There are five different core sections taken in different sections of the lake. The effect of rapid deposition of sediment would be different in the different locations, as the rapid deposition would occur close to the inlet and taper off with distance. Most of the material so deposited would be sand and other materials with fast settlement rates.

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

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

Actually there are ~25 spring tides per year ...

... The time between two full moons (a Lunar month) is about 29.53 days[1] (29 days, 12 hours, 44 minutes) on average ...
That's 2x365.24/29.53 = 24.74 per year ...

... and the calibration curve (see below) would be nearly vertical because the horizontal axis would be compressed while the mathematical calculation of age from the 14C/12C ratios in the samples would be unaffected.

Curiously, it does not matter how many diatom mass deaths occur in a year or how much the river flow changes, as this does not affect the layer formation. There could be 50 mass deaths in one summer and there would be one diatom layer for the year. There could be 50 storms and it wouldn't affect the winter layer formed by clay sediment.

This is because the diatoms settle fast -- within a day of death -- while the clay settles slowly taking months to form a layer. and only when there are no further diatom deaths. Only the winter months provide the time necessary to form a clay layer.

This also means that the 14C pattern matching to the dendrochronologies would not be possible.

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

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

However, we have independent corroboration for Lake Suigetsu in two forms:

(1) the age of volcanic layers and

(2) the consilience with coral data


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

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

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

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

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

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

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

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

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

You say that I have provided ZERO evidence , and yet I have shown a link and discussed the method in which they have recently determined the half lives of thorium230 and uranium234:

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

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

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

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

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 47 of 119 (712032)
11-26-2013 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 39 by RAZD
11-20-2013 2:03 PM

Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration
Most of this post just rehashes refuted arguments and fails to deal honestly with the data.
Correlations and consilience are NOT explained by making stuff up

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

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

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

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

Just for the record, I don't believe in any vast conspiracy. We will be dealing with the consilience continually in our other discussions , I just felt it necessary to state my position on the alleged conspiracy for the record. I believe the "cherry picking" isn't true cherry picking because its unintentional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by RAZD, posted 11-20-2013 2:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2013 8:53 AM mindspawn has not replied

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 48 of 119 (712034)
11-26-2013 4:42 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by RAZD
11-21-2013 3:28 PM

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

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

Thanks for the educational post. It didn't cover our points of dispute though and so I quoted only the relevant sections. I feel you still have not faced the fact that the Bristlecone Pines are in a unique situation, lacking any gradual transitions between favorable and unfavorable conditions. The conditions are always unfavorable, that is why there is a growth ring for every significant precipitation event. Multiple rings have been proven in experiments.

I am still waiting to for your explanation why there would not be a thin growth ring during a significant summer rainfall that occurs between two dry spells in the dry White Mountain region. I see no other possibility, and have already dealt with your "snow melt in spring" argument.

The fundamental principle of dendrochronology is crossdating (Fig. 1), which is classically defined as “the procedure of matching ring width variations . . . among trees that have grown in nearby areas, allowing the identification of the exact year in which each ring formed” (Fritts, 1976, p. 534).

Regarding your figure 1, I definitely agree that overlaps as shown in the diagram would make a strong case, provided those are proven annual layers and the annual layers remained annual throughout the chronology. My problem with crossdating is that the overlaps in reality may not be as clear as shown in the diagram. A sequence of four or five rings even if differing in dates would naturally overlap over time merely through statistical probability. We need a long matching sequence as shown in the diagram to eliminate the strong statistical probability of short sequences showing matching patterns.

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

This inability of any single species to successfully cross-date with Bristlecone Pines is not a strong argument for cross-dating Bristlecone Pines. Neither is it clear if they are specifically referring to the ancient White Mountain Bristlecone Pines which are in the driest region, or possibly they are referring to other stands of these trees. If I could actually see diagrams like Figure 1, it would be easy to see how well they have cross-dated or if the overlaps are merely superficial over a few rings.

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

A premature conclusion considering that you have not yet shown how a tree in a truly dry area would not respond with growth to each significant summer rainfall between completely arid dry spells in soil that retains no moisture (White Mountains).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by RAZD, posted 11-21-2013 3:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2013 9:51 AM mindspawn has replied
 Message 52 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2013 10:16 AM mindspawn has not replied

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 49 of 119 (712035)
11-26-2013 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by RAZD
11-22-2013 9:17 AM

Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration
For the simple reasons that :

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

My problem with the Irish and German chronologies is that they only seem to match the Bristlecone Pine chronologies in ancient times. Even trees in close proximity to the White Mountain bristlecone pines do not show consistent chronology matches in recent times. MY conclusion from the soil/weather of the White Mountains is that the nature of wood growth absolutely requires multiple rings there, and their match with Europe's trees during the Middle/Early holocene indicates that in fact Irish and German chronologies ALSO had multiple rings during the Middle/Early Holocene. Thus early and Middle Holocene dates are out by thousands of years due to the dry weather and intermittent summer rainfalls of the early/middle Holocene causing multiple tree ring growth.

The following link is to indicate early holocene dry weather and reduced summer rainfall patterns which match the current weather conditions of the BCP trees in the White Mountains:
"We show (i) that winters were drier and summers shorter and cooler in western Europe during colder periods in Greenland, (ii) in contrast to the present-day climate in the Holzmaar region, summer rains were clearly reduced during the early Holocene, and (iii) the climate not only changed rapidly (< 5 years) but recurring drier events were common during the studied period."

ie perfect conditions for multiple tree rings existed in Europe (dry cold climate with rare rainfall in the warmer growth season), dates are therefore over-estimated.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by RAZD, posted 11-22-2013 9:17 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2013 7:24 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2013 7:37 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 55 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2013 7:45 PM mindspawn has not replied

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 56 of 119 (712095)
11-27-2013 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 46 by RAZD
11-25-2013 9:00 AM

Uranium and Thorium
AND compared them to previous determinations that were done in the lab -- as I documented. The new values have smaller errors but otherwise replicate the previous ones, and the consilience from using a different methodology to determine their values once again provides high confidence in their accuracy and precision.

Again, if you want to see the lab obtained independent values I suggest you do some reading. Starting here: Half-life of 230Th. It is on-line and tells how the half-life was measured independently in the lab.

Nice one, looking at your link I see they did use the specific activity method to determine the half life of Thorium 230, have you got any evidence for how the half-life of Uranium 234 was established?

Whether we look at Thorium 230, Uranium 234, Uranium 238 or carbon dating, we have the same problem that the magnetic field effect on radiocarbon and radioactive elements is largely unknown and has to be calibrated against an additional source of accurate dates. To check carbon dating against radioactive dating does not promote confidence when both forms of dating underwent the same proportionate increase in magnetic field strength a few thousand years ago, and both decay rates are affected by the magnetic field.

Conclusion: Ur-Th dating as with carbon dating underwent the same magnetic field effects to the decay rates in the past, therefore their consilience. However the dates are inaccurate because the magnetic field was a lot stronger back then.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2013 9:00 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2013 9:05 AM mindspawn has replied

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 57 of 119 (712096)
11-27-2013 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by RAZD
11-26-2013 9:51 AM

Dendrochronology Basics
And yet, curiously, the part you quoted tells you and shows you the difference between stress rings and end-of-year rings:

your quote:
" The key to distinguishing between double or false rings and annual rings lies in the nature of the transition between the latewood and earlywood cells: in a false or double ring the transition is gradual due to the phasing in and out of favorable growing condition"

Yes I did say that I quoted the relevant parts, that is why I included that comment about stress rings. I then explained that bristlecone pines are continuously under temperature/moisture stress owing to the dryness of the soil. If you look at the weather and soil of the white Mountains there is no gradual "phasing in and out of favorable conditions". ie conditions do not favor stress rings, they favor multiple rings due to the complete dry-out between rain spells.

Look at the rings just to the right of the false band and the ones just to the right of the winter band - are they remotely the same?

Irrelevant because in the White Mountains the conditions do not favor stress rings due to the lack of "gradual phasing in and out of favorable growing conditions". Each summer rainfall followed by a dry spell of a few weeks favors a whole new growth ring, this is how wood actually grows.

Because trees have reserves that they can use between rainfalls, but this doesn't happen in the winter because they are frozen.

This has been your only good point so far regarding my claim of multiple rings. If you can prove that the reserves of these specific trees in especially dry areas cause continuous growth for many weeks without rainfall your point is made. Until then its more logical that after a few weeks of dry spell in one of the driest soils on earth, the tree would stop producing wood until the next summer rainfall.

From your post 50

all dendrochronologists are bumbling idiots too naive, ignorant and incompetent to notice something you only believe has happened

If dendrochronologists overlook an obvious fact that trees completely starved of moisture during their growth season do actually stop growing , then this is incompetent. In their defense though they wouldn't want their findings to contradict evolutionary timeframes and bring down the ridicule of the establishment, so its the establishment's fault that open-mindedness has been replaced by an almost religious fervour to support evolution and mock those who question it. This mocking attitude of the establishment is suppressing true science in much the same manner as some members of this board resort to swearing and ridicule instead of a pleasant exchange of ideas. Oh well.....

Which is easily demonstrated with the Bristlecone pines -- living trees with ~5,000 years of rings matched with standing dead trees with ~7,000 years of rings ... unless you think they have stood for thousands of years, would have thousands of years of rings to match.

Also notice that the overlap shown in Fig 1 has consilient rings between all three pieces so the overlaps are normally much more than "four or five rings" -- again you must think the dendrochronologists are incompetent, naive and ignorant ... but that doesn't matter -- you are not explaining the consilience between the three chronologies with ad hoc nit-picking that IF TRUE would mean the matches between the chronologies could not logically have occurred.

If the overlaps are easily demonstrated with Bristlecone pines, then please demonstrate it. Like I said before, if the actual cross-dating rings had as much overlap as the diagrammatic representation, that would be a convincing case. But even if you match barcodes of four categories (thin, thick, black, white) they would show a statistical tendency of a perfect match of 4 bars every 336 bars using a random starting point. So the length of matching sequence is essential to reduce the obvious statistical probability of an error in sequence matching.

What inability???????????? Did you not understand? That is a symptom in keeping with cognitive dissonance theory

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

Your quote appears to indicate that they cannot rely only on one species for the full chronology due to the fact that the ranges do not overlap. They use all 3 species for cross-checking. If I am incorrect in this interpretation then kindly show me your evidence that despite no overlap of ranges they were able to use any one of these species to cross-check the full Bristlecone Pine chronology.

Except (a) I have shown the difference between a stress band and a winter band, and (b) the consilience with the other chronologies gives high confidence in the Bristlecone pine chronology.

I have explained how stress bands are not applicable to the White Mountain BCP trees if we refer to your quotes on how stress bands are formed. Its possible that certain other species in similar areas would also undergo multiple rings, but not as consistently unless they exist in the same or nearby stands as those ancient BCP trees. This would explain the matching patterns when the BCP chronology is cross-checked with other species.

It would help your argument if you could show recent (eg 1816) cross-matching between these dry area regions and the European wetter region chronologies. This would help to prove your case that even the BCP trees have annual rings. Cross matching between BCP trees and European trees during the dry periods of the early or mid Holocene but not recently only serves to strengthen my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2013 9:51 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2013 10:16 AM mindspawn has replied

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 58 of 119 (712097)
11-27-2013 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by RAZD
11-26-2013 7:24 PM

Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration
An assertion contradicted by facts. Perhaps you could provide a link to show this lack of consistency rather than just assert it.

Or did you misinterpret the information I provided in Message 41?

Fair enough I cannot prove this lack of consistency. Are you able to prove that recent BCP tree ring sequences match with trees in areas known for wetter climates and soils (eg European tree ring chronologies). To prove this is essential for your whole argument.

In an earlier post you stated the following:
"Curiously, the fact remains that the Irish Oak and the German Oak and Pine chronologies are not in precipitation sensitive environments, they are indeed annual rings, and they agree with the Bristlecone Pine chronology for over 8,000 years with 99.5% agreement."

But in a later post you quote the following:
"The relation between North American and European wood has been studied using bristlecone pine (BCP) and European oak (German oak and Irish oak), respectively. Discrepancies have become evident over the years, in particular when the German oak was corrected by a dendro-shift of 41 yr towards older ages (Kromer et al. 1996). Attempts were made to resolve the discrepancies by remeasuring BCP samples, measured earlier in Tucson (Linick et al. 1986). The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 +/- 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements."

(99.5% agreement?)

But that's not a conclusion it is an a priori assumption based on fantasy, working backwards from belief, and unsupported by evidence.

Of course you would say that. But everyone knows that trees would actually stop growing in summer during extended dry spells in extreme dry soil conditions, wood needs moisture to grow. Any denial of this is a head-in-the-sand approach to truth.

And I have shown this to be a false assertion, most recently in Message 51. You are wrong about the soil and wrong about the weather, and your magical mysterious 11-12 stress rings (a) would be identified by an average dendrochronologist and (b) would have to be on the order of 1/2" of rain in weekly installments -- hardly stressful conditions for any tree, and certainly not stressful for the hardy Bristlecone pines that have evolved to handle the extreme ecology they inhabit, including the ability to store and use water over extended periods. The more extreme inhabitants grow on dolomite because it provides another storehouse of water.

I dealt with your stress ring assumption in the previous post. These are not stress rings and do not conform to your description of stress rings. An absolute stop to a wet season would not cause a stress ring, it would cause an end to a ring. Renewed rainfall would create another ring. These would in no way form multiple stress rings but would mimic wet and dry seasonal rings.

I accept your point about dolomite, but this merely allows the tree to live where others cannot live by extending its source of water. Other trees would die, this does not disprove the temporary suspension of growth the tree would undergo during extensive dry spells. I already pointed out that these trees do actually undergo multiple rings in experimental situations under mimicked conditions.

I am not wrong about the soil or the weather, I am mainly in agreement with you about the weather so if I am wrong then so are you. I believe your one quote slightly underestimates the actual rainfall figures in the arid region east of the sierra mountains when compared to actual figures as recorded in nearby weather stations. I also believe your quote overestimates the proportion of snow to rainfall, but the same situation would apply even with your rainfall figures. There would still be a few summer rainfalls of over an inch interspersed with absolutely dry soils , and therefore multiple growth rings per year.

Regarding the dryness of the area here are some quotes:
"Stands of high elevation white pines are typically found on exposed, dry, and rocky slopes, ridges, and mountain peaks. They are well adapted to survive in the inhospitable environmental conditions that exist in these locations including intense cold, drought, wind, and blowing snow and ice."
"The White Mountains are also one of the driest mountain ranges in the world for its height"
"Explore the mysterious White Mountains of the California-Nevada border. ... and the third highest peak in California, is one of the driest regions on Earth."
"The dry climate and high altitude make this region a rare environment"
"Bristlecone pine displays its characteristic gnarled, twisted form as it rises above the arid, dolomite-rich slopes of the White Mountains "

Except that this doesn't show why the pattern is exactly, precisely, and accurately the same ... with only 0.5% error over thousands of years.

This is just you making stuff up to try to resolve the dissonance caused by this information

We seem to be agreeing that the two chronologies match. So I am failing to see why I am trying to resolve dissonance when I agree the two chronologies match. This is central to my argument and it is also central to yours. I am only disputing a RECENT match between the two chronologies due to my claim that current conditions favor multiple rings in the White Mountains but NOT in Europe. Previously both regions were dry, they would match.

Nevertheless I cannot find your link that proves the two chronologies match by 99.5%, could you kindly post the link again so that I can review your evidence.

Again, that's not a conclusion it is an a priori assumption based on fantasy, working backwards from belief, and unsupported by evidence.

In a cold dry environment but with only intermittent summer rainfalls, the nature of trees is that they do stop growing between rainfalls. The weather during the early holocene was often cold and dry with limited summer rainfall, perfect for multiple rings. Dendrochronologists have not taken this into account, but trees have no other way to grow, except these rare summer rainfalls. In between they would stop growing, so even in Europe there would have to have been multiple rings.

(I am going to enjoy your response to this because I am right, evolutionists will froth at the mouth and ask for evidence and deny the truth, and the neutral readers will note that I have to be correct).

Can you show this match graphically? or is it just another completely non-evidenced assertion?

I am relying on your assertions that the two chronologies match, and also noting that both regions had dry cold periods with low summer rainfalls, perfect conditions for multiple rings interspersed by matching worldwide events.

Reduced and drier do not mean drought ...

And as I have said before, that is not really news (Message 28):

I never mentioned drought and so am wondering why you mentioned it? The following weather conditions would largely mimic the current White Mountain weather:
"We show (i) that winters were drier and summers shorter and cooler in western Europe during colder periods in Greenland, (ii) in contrast to the present-day climate in the Holzmaar region, summer rains were clearly reduced during the early Holocene, and (iii) the climate not only changed rapidly (< 5 years) but recurring drier events were common during the studied period."

The entire Holocene (modern era) is now covered by the German oak/pine chronology, including the climate information shown in the tree ring widths. The trees used grew in the flood plain near rivers, meaning you need to show that the rivers dried up for substantial durations and then cram that in to 11-12 mysterious magical growing events. You haven't even begun to show this.

A poor growing season means a narrow ring, not multiple rings. In addition if there were a significant stress event it would show up as a stress ring rather than a winter ring.

Could you kindly prove that the earlier trees in the German chronology were also experiencing flood plain conditions? If so how well drained was the soil between floods? If not then what was the weather like during the earlier period?

Again, that's not a conclusion it is an a priori assumption based on fantasy, working backwards from belief, and unsupported by evidence.

You are grasping at straws here. You need to show actual evidence of your mysterious magical events, not just presuppose them.

I'll let you respond to these and the next two post (one about Irish oaks and one about German oaks and pines) before posting anymore.

Meantime I have requested a copy of your Holocene climate paper so I can see what it says beyond the abstract.

I posted this earlier in this thread, the following describes how tree rings are precipitation and temperature sensitive and this is compounded by dry soils:
"As used in dendrochronology, this principle states that rates of plant processes are constrained by the primary environmental variable(s) that is most limiting. For example, precipitation is often the most limiting factor to plant growth in arid and semiarid areas. In these regions, tree growth cannot proceed faster than that allowed by the amount of precipitation, causing the width of the rings (i.e., the volume of wood produced) to be a function of precipitation. In some locations (for example, in higher latitudes and elevations), temperature is often the most limiting factor. For many forest trees, especially those growing in temperate and/or closed canopy conditions, climatic factors may not be most limiting. Instead, processes related to stand dynamics (especially competition for nutrients and light) may be most limiting to tree growth. In addition, the factor that is most limiting is often acted upon by other non-climatic factors. While precipitation may be limiting in semiarid regions, the effects of the low precipitation amounts may be compounded by well-drained (e.g. sandy) soils."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2013 7:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2013 4:24 PM mindspawn has replied

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 59 of 119 (712102)
11-27-2013 7:09 AM
Reply to: Message 54 by RAZD
11-26-2013 7:37 PM

Re: Irish Oak
As we saw in Message 52, Bristlecone Pines, there are two other dendrochronologies of interest in measuring the age of the earth by counting annual layers: the Irish oak and the German oak (and pine) chronologies.
My recollection is that dendrochronology started with oak trees in Europe, by setting up a database of oak tree sections from archaeological sites and matching different sections that overlapped in time to build a complete lineage of tree ring dates.

Unlike the Bristlecone pines the Irish oak is not environmentally challenged:

No problem with this, like I have said before I agree that recent tree ring chronologies in Europe are based on annual rings, and are highly accurate and consilient with known world events. Weather patterns beyond 2000bp were often dryer in Europe and that is where the multiple rings become applicable.

Thus we can have high confidence that the tree rings are annual layers and not due to environmental factors.

The common name for this species is "Post Oak" due to its natural resistance to rot thus making a good material for posts in ancient constructions. This also means that there are a lot of samples that are referenced to and associated with archaeological finds, finds that can be dated by other means, including historical documents as far back as the history goes. Oaks are also considered one of the best species for dendrochronology.

Archaeological finds are often dated using carbon dating, which like tree rings in Europe and also our knowledge of historical dates are all pretty accurate until about 2000 years ago. Earlier than that, the earth was often subjected to regular monsoon type weather and other weather patterns different to today's weather that could result in multiple rings per year.

For example, the Mid-Holocene had global monsoon weather:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by RAZD, posted 11-26-2013 7:37 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2013 7:00 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 12:18 PM mindspawn has replied

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 64 of 119 (712158)
11-28-2013 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 63 by RAZD
11-27-2013 7:00 PM

Re: happy thanksgiving
Thank you very much for your kind wishes. Hope you have a happy thanksgiving. I am from Africa and so don't celebrate thanksgiving but I do appreciate the thought.

And thanks for the civility of the discussion so far, the discussion may seem haphazard and repetitive but I do believe we are making progress, even if merely to define where our differences lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2013 7:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 8:01 PM mindspawn has not replied

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 65 of 119 (712160)
11-28-2013 2:37 AM
Reply to: Message 60 by RAZD
11-27-2013 9:05 AM

Re: Uranium and Thorium
uh ... nope. The magnetic field has no measurable effect on the rate of decay of any element/isotope.

It affects the production of 14C in the atmosphere by gamma rays hitting Nitrogen atoms:

http://science.howstuffworks.com/carbon-14.htm/printable (5)

Maybe you are not aware of the Purdue studies on detected fluctuations in the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. This was partly discussed in the Flood geology forum and also in another thread in this forum.

Purdue University has found the following relationship between decay rates and the solar wind:
1) During a solar flare decay may slow down suddenly
2) There is a July slowdown in decay
"This influence can wax and wane due to seasonal changes in the Earth's distance from the sun and also during solar flares, according to the hypothesis, which is supported with data published in a dozen research papers since it was proposed in 2006, said Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue University professor of physics."
3) There is a midnight slowdown in decay
4) There are "periodicities" 11.2-1 years and 12.5 years-1

"This article presents an analysis of about 29,000 measurements of gamma radiation associated with the decay of radon in a sealed container at the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) Laboratory in Jerusalem between 28 January 2007 and 10 May 2010. These measurements exhibit strong variations in time of year and time of day, which may be due in part to environmental influences. However, time-series analysis reveals a number of periodicities, including two at approximately 11.2 year−1 and 12.5 year−1. We have previously found these oscillations in nuclear-decay data acquired at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), and we have suggested that these oscillations are attributable to some form of solar radiation that has its origin in the deep solar interior. A curious property of the GSI data is that the annual oscillation is much stronger in daytime data than in nighttime data, but the opposite is true for all other oscillations. This may be a systematic effect but, if it is not, this property should help narrow the theoretical options for the mechanism responsible for decay-rate variability."

The fluctuations are slight, but clearly detectable. Decay slows down during any increased penetration of the solar wind as described in the 4 points above. Regarding midnight, the solar wind that continuously bombards the poles penetrates the magnetic field easiest at the midnight position. In July the magnetic field is tilted most strongly towards the sun (in the northern hemisphere) and there is therefore increased penetration through the magnetic field in the weak spot of the magnetic field above the north pole.

1)If slight increases in solar penetration can cause a small drop in decay, there is a strong possibility that large decreases in solar penetration can cause large increases in decay.
2) A strong magnetic field would cause large decreases in solar penetration.
3) The discovery that the process lacks randomness therefore removes the application of the half-life formula, which in turns ruins the current exponential curve that is applied to radioactive dates (the exponential effect of the half-life formula no longer applies)

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2013 9:05 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 1:28 PM mindspawn has replied

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 66 of 119 (712163)
11-28-2013 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by RAZD
11-27-2013 10:16 AM

Re: Dendrochronology Basics
Tree ring dates matched exactly (100%) with historical dates for Bristlecone pine and Irish oak for 1816 CE, 536 CE and 44 BCE, Bristlecone pine,Irish oak, German oak and pine dendrochronologies match with error less than 0.5%. ...

I'm starting with your last comment first, kindly supply your proof that 1816 is recorded in those long lasting Bristlecone Pine trees of the White Mountains. This is my third request and would really strengthen your case if you could back up this statement with facts.

Another claim made without evidence. Your whole argument rests on your "dryness of the soil" which is false -- the trees grow on rock outcroppings and preferentially grow on dolomite because it retains moisture. Only in the winter when the water freezes does this supply stop.

The slopes are dry, and even dolomite drains, it merely retains the moisture longer than other soils. The presence of dolomite does not create an indefinite supply of moisture, it merely allows those trees to live, without the dolomite they would die in those conditions.

Please supply your evidence for your comment "only in winter when the water freezes does this supply stop". Providing evidence for this comment will assist your point and so I'm looking forward to your evidence.

Relevant because it shows you are grasping at straws rather than confronting actual evidence. And you don't have "a few weeks" between rainfalls for you mysterious magical 11-12 events per year -- the growing season is 6 to 12 weeks: you have a week or less between your hypothetical events, and the amount of rain in them is 1/2" or less.

Claiming it is irrelevant is a symptom of cognitive dissonance, a way for you to tell yourself lies to reduce the dissonance.

I assumed you actually looked at the rainfall chart that I supplied for the White mountains, there are dry spells of a few weeks between wet spells.

Please supply your evidence that the growing season is always limited to 6 to 8 weeks and if this growth is limited to the warm summer months, this ruins your argument that the growth is only from the annual spring melt. This summer growth argument actually suits me, because then growth is limited to the intermittent summer rainfalls which I have been claiming. When I looked into this growth season, it appears to be over 3 months, only sometimes being limited to 6 weeks.

Any number of multiple rings ruins your argument, there does not always have to be 10-12 rings a year.

Time for you to actually read up and learn: it is typical behavior of all trees to build up a storage of water when available and use it later -- all you need to do is look at all the vegetation that lives in deserts.

This is your claim, a debate is not won through unsubstantiated claims. You need to present evidence as to how these trees store water and for how long they grow when the water supply is eliminated.

Or it could just be evidence that you are wrong. Note once again that this paragraph is ripe with evidence of cognitive dissonance, full of the made up assertions (lies) you tell yourself to reduce your personal dissonance.

Again you refer to "evolutionary time-frames" something that is non-existent.

You refer to ridicule of the establishment, when in science a scientist hopes to overturn previous knowledge and improve on what has gone before -- actual science that shows previous conclusions were false is welcomed.

and "almost religious fervour to support evolution and mock those who question it" is your conspiracy theory again.

We will see who has the cognitive dissonance as this debate continues, and I do think that evolutionary theory has been prematurely accepted as fact and so there is some intellectual pride and sometimes careers at stake if it is refuted. This does not amount to conspiracy theory though, merely human pride.

It's simple maths, the trees live for thousands of years, you have specimens that are 5000 to 7000 years old, there are hundreds of trees, the chronology spans almost 8,000 years, therefor overlaps of thousands of years is more likely than not.

and they are not using only four bars look again at the diagram:

Your comment has circular reasoning. The diagram is convincing, all we need now is for you to demonstrate that the reality is as convincing as the pretty picture. Can you demonstrate this?

No you have not explained, because you have provided absolutely no evidence for stress bands actually being counted in error -- this is just something you made up to tell yourself and reduce your cognitive dissonance.

I am not following your point here. I do not believe there are any stress bands, so I am not claiming they are counted in error.

My summary so far regarding Bristlecone pines:

1) You still have provided no evidence for recent matching of BCPs with trees of definite annual growth patterns (eg 1816)
2) Even Dolomite soils drain in an extreme dry environment, no soil can hold water indefinitely, you need to prove how long dolomite retains moisture in a dry environment after about one inch of rainfall.
3) Your summer growing season claim contradicts your claim of a spring growing season.
4) I don't need 10-12 annual rings to refute your argument, a few summer rainfalls separated by dry spells of a few weeks also suits my argument.
5) You need to present evidence that trees continue to grow for many weeks after rainfalls, how and for how long do they retain moisture?
6) I still maintain that a tree would stop growing after a few weeks of no rainfall in extreme dry conditions even in dolomite soils, and feel you need to answer some of the above questions to refute this claim. This is how wood grows, with extreme moisture sensitivity.
7) I mentioned the Lammerts study in post 27 and post 36, where Bristlecone Pines have been shown to show multiple growth rings in in induced two week drought conditions.
You have not responded to the Lammerts study.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2013 10:16 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 7:47 PM mindspawn has replied
 Message 73 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2013 12:12 PM mindspawn has not replied

Member (Idle past 1980 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 67 of 119 (712170)
11-28-2013 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 62 by RAZD
11-27-2013 4:24 PM

Re: Some annual rainfall weather information for your consideration
99.5% accuracy is an example of high confidence -- ie that the real value is somewhere +/-0.5% of the value determined by dendrochronology.

So I wade through a 30 page document to try and find some proof that recent BCP chronology matches European chronology and all I find is references to 4700bp, 7600bp, 4900 bp and these had enough error not even to be used in their IntCal04 study. Could you kindly point to somewhere in that study or anywhere else that makes your point that recent White Mountain BCP tree rings cannot have multiple rings because they are cross dated with European trees? Its a simple request of mine for you to show evidence for your claims.

"The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically-dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 ± 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements. Applying this shift to the Tucson data results in a close fit to the wiggles of the German oak, which would not occur if there were an error in the dendrochronology of either series. Because of this offset, the IntCal working group has decided not to include the BCP record in IntCal04."

Yes -- when we include the Bristlecone pine we have a discrepancy of 37 years at 7600 BP ...

... 37/7600 = 0.004868421 = 0.4868421% error => 100%-0.48% = 99.52% not erroneous, 99.52% accurate.

Yes, the agreement is in the earlier Holocene, this suits my argument as well. I need you to show me that BCP trees do not currently have multiple rings.

No, everyone knows that trees would slow down during droughts. Trees have reserves to call on in extreme conditions, and those that live where extreme conditions commonly occur are better adapted to surviving those conditions.

And once again you are basing your perception on false assumptions. The Bristlecone pines grow near the tree line, higher than other species of trees, and they preferentially grow on outcrops of dolomite, because dolomite retains more moisture than the surrounding sandstone. Dolomite is rock not soil, it soaks up water when it is available (such as after spring thaw) and the trees are able to tap those reservoirs of water.

The growing season is only 6 to 12 weeks, and that is just not enough time for the dolomite to completely dry out in 11 or 12 events ... that's at most a week between events ...

And the amount of precipitation that falls as rain is less than 1/2 of 10" to 12" ... at most it is 1/2" ... hardly enough to cause massive growth of several rings ... because new cells don't form that fast.

The math is against you.All your weather stations are to the west side of the mountains where the Bristlecone pines grow -- the WET side where the rain falls on the mountain as the air is forced up to altitudes that cause the rain to fall. The air is dry because of the altitude ... so the west side of the mountain purges the air of moisture, and what comes over the top is drier a lot drier. Therefore using west side weather is false information.

There are only two weather stations on the dryer east side of the Sierra mountains in close proximity to the White Mountains:

Even further east in the dry Nevada, the rainfall pattern is the same, intermittent summer rainfalls interspersed with dry spells:

Do you deny that the White Mountains have intermittent summer rainfalls separated by dry spells of a few weeks?

So now you are trying to redefine stress rings, and assume that you know more about tree growth than the scientists that have actually studied it ... another sign of cognitive dissonance, trying to change the evidence to fit your belief.

Again, the dolomite acts as a reservoir and the rain only restocks the reservoir. The cells and needles in the trees act as reservoirs.

Please provide your evidence that cells and needles act as reservoirs and cause continuous growth throughout dry summer conditions. Please also provide evidence that dolomite retains moisture over weeks even after only an inch of rain on some of the driest slopes on earth.

As for stress rings, I used your definition of stress rings, and your definition does not apply to the Bristlecone Pine situation which lacks any moisture between precipitation.

(1) Where did you point this out?
(2) What is the source of this information?
(3) How did they determine that multiple rings formed? By identifying stress rings?

In post 27 and 36. The source is from creationist studies. They identified these rings by counting rings.

Note that they do not say dry soil.

Note that they do not say 11 to 12 droughts per year.

Note that they do say that the Bristlecone pines are "well adapted" to survive the conditions.

Note the reference to dolomite.

I agree the trees are well adapted, dolomite does not make your point. Just because the soils can retain moisture better than other soils, does not mean they will always be damp in one of the driest places on earth. I can see you are milking the dolomite point, but I have faced that fact and still find your logic short of making your point.

And curiously, the "RECENT match" would include the precise and 100% accurate matches with historical events (volcano eruptions) at 1816 CE, 536 CE and 44 BCE. Note that I expect that other matches will be found for other eruptions (they are noted in the papers as correlations between tree rings and ice core layers) if historical references can be found. Perhaps Egyptian or Chinese docuements.

RAZD I need you to just provide your evidence. Your repeated claims that 1816 shows in Bristlecone chronologies is starting to sound hollow without your evidence. The link you provide referred to ancient BCP chronolgies which confirms my point. I need more links from you to show that 1816 shows up in any White Mountain Bristlecone chronologies.

And dendrochronologists and botanists who have studied actual tree growth and actual response to actual stress conditions will be laughing at you and your hubris.

And of course scientists will ask for the evidence -- that is how science works.

And truly neutral readers will note the lack of evidence to support your position, the denial of evidence that counters your position, the massive amounts of evidence that support annual rings and an old earth ... they will not be blinded by your belief.

My belief that incredibly dry slopes during two week drought conditions would cause a temporary suspension in wood growth? You need stronger support than dolomite soils to contradict the obvious about the nature of wood growth. Like I said , the multiple rings have been proven in experiments.

All you need to do is look at the maps in the papers to see where they are

I was referring to history, you seem to be referring to modern maps. Can you show me a middle Holocene map that shows that these were flood plain trees back then?

Given that the Bristle-cone Pine dendrochronology from Sierra Nevada, the Oak dendrochronology from Ireland, and the Oak dendrochronology from Germany agree within 0,5% over 8,000 years of record, what mindspawn needs to demonstrate what specific type of events could affect each dendrochronology in exactly the same way in spite of them being in 3 diverse locations in the world and two different types of trees (one pine -evergreen- and the other oak -deciduous), and two significantly different ecologies.

It is the correlations that show that the chronologies are accurate.

The agreement over long periods supports my position too. I have never denied long term agreement on the various tree chronologies. You have to show that there is recent agreement with the BCP chronology as well to make your point.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by RAZD, posted 11-27-2013 4:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 2:31 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 74 by RAZD, posted 11-29-2013 10:53 PM mindspawn has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022