Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8984 total)
43 online now:
AZPaul3, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 40 visitors)
Newest Member: Jerry Johnson
Post Volume: Total: 877,687 Year: 9,435/23,288 Month: 450/1,544 Week: 164/561 Day: 4/63 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


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: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(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 ...
= 4.99×10^3009 ... 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 (4.99×10^3009)^2

Four would be ...

1 in (4.99×10^3009)^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: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(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: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


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: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(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: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


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; Bølling/Allerød, B/A; and Glacial, GL. Gray bars indicate timing of the Glacial-Bølling 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

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(7)
Message 109 of 119 (713291)
12-11-2013 5:51 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 2:28 AM


Re: SUMMARY -- regrouping
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.

This is because your 'summary' was scattered and disjointed, filled with misinformation, mistakes and misunderstanding ... each requiring some detail to answer properly. Fairly typical creationist fare, complete with supposition in place of actual evidence for any claim.

Your latest posts are even worse.

If you want short concise replies start dealing with the issues in a concise and focused approach. So far all you are doing is repeating arguments while ignoring the evidence that invalidates it and then jump on every new piece of information to twist it some other way, grab another straw, run down another rabbit hole. This is not productive in reaching a resolution, it is avoiding the issue (cognitive dissonance behavior).

So lets do some short(er) reviews to recap where we are in this debate, one issue at a time, starting with tree rings.

One thing you could do would be to -- briefly -- list your mechanisms for altering the time scales, one by one, and explaining where these 'errors' occur in the chronologies, why they occur, and the objective empirical evidence that they did occur.

This is what science and objective empirical evidence says:

  1. Bristlecone pine -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
    1. the 'old' chronology (Methuselah, White Mountains), anchored by living trees to 1953 CE and extending 8,653 years to 6,700 BCE,
    2. a 'new' chronology (Campito Mountain), anchored by living trees to 1971 CE with 5,403 annual values extending to 3,433 BCE, (corrected to 5,405 years to 3,435 BCE see below),
    3. no extra ring growth has been recorded in either chronology, even when climate was favorable for a stress ring
    4. frost rings were recorded in both chronologies
    5. one missing ring was found in some tree samples during the first 18 years of the Campito chronology
    6. it is very probable that low sample size could result in failing to identify a missing ring in all of the samples
    7. the overlap period is 5,397 years long from 1962 CE to 3,435 BCE with only two errors,
    8. one missing ring was found in all samples of the Campito chronology at (8000-5859M=) 2,141 BCE, and this matches a narrow ring in Methuselah chronology, and
    9. a second missing ring was found in all samples of the Campito chronology at (8000-5320M=) 2,680 BCE, and this matches a narrow ring in Methuselah chronology,
    10. there is a 100% match of rings from 1962 CE to 2140 BCE,
    11. there is a 100% match of rings from 2142 BCE to 2679 BCE with the Campito rings shifted 1 year older at 2141 BCE,
    12. there is a 100% match of rings from 2681 BCE to 3435 BCE with the Campito rings shifted another year older at 2680 BCE,
    13. inserting a zero width band into the Campito chronology for the missing rings at these two locations then matches two narrow rings in the Methuselah chronology and results in a consolidated chronology extending 8,671 years from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE,
    14. an error of 2 rings between 1962 CE and 3435 BCE, in a 5397 year period, is an error of 0.037% so overall there is 99.963% match on all rings between chronologies, very high precision and accuracy.
    15. the probability of matching of 5395 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 5397 year period is "vanishingly small" ...

  2. European oak -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
    1. the Irish oak chronology, anchored by living trees at 1971 CE and extending 9,951 years to 7980 BCE
    2. the German oak chronology, anchored to living trees at 2002 CE and extending 10,482 years to 8,480 BCE
    3. combining these two chronologies together results in a consolidated chronology extending 10,482 years from 2002 CE to 8,480 BCE
    4. the documented error between these two chronologies when compared statistically is <10 years, or +/-5 years from the average values
    5. laboratory precision accounted for almost all variability between the data sets
    6. unfortunately where in the overlap these errors occur is not documented, but this is an error of only 0.102%
    7. the overlap period is 9,951 years long from 1971 CE to 7,980 BCE with <10 years difference
    8. the probability of matching of 9,941 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 9,951 year period is also "vanishingly small" ...

  3. Crossdating -- between the consolidated Bristlecone pine chronology and the consolidated European oak chronology:
    1. the documented error between these two consolidated chronologies is 37+/-6 years
    2. the overlap period is 8,671 years long from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE with 37 years difference, an error of 0.43%
    3. the Bristlecone pine chronology was shorter, too young, by 37 years at the end of the overlap,
    4. there is a high probability that this error is due to missing rings at the ancient end of the chronology when sample numbers are small
    5. the probability of matching of 8,634 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 8,671 year period is also "vanishingly small" and this is compounded by the "vanishingly small" probability for each of these consolidated chronologies being composed of randomly assembled bands ... so I say it is "vanishingly small squared" ... ?

  4. German preboral pine -- a tethered annual tree ring count chronology:
    1. the German pine chronology is tethered to the German oak chronology at 7942 BCE to 8,480 BCE and extends to 10,461 BCE
    2. the overlap period between the German pine chronology and the German oak chronology is 538 years long from 7942 BCE to 8,480 BCE
    3. the dendrochronological crossdating resulted in a difference of only 8 yr with respect to the published 14C wiggle-match position used for IntCal98 ... t=4.3 so it is a strong correlation
    4. the documented error between these two chronologies when compared statistically was reported conservatively at +/-20 years to account for the relatively short period of overlap, an error of +/-3.7%
    5. the consolidated oak and pine chronology extends 12,463 years from 2002 CE to 10,461 BCE
    6. total error for oaks and pines would be +/-5 plus +/-20 = +/-25 years in 12,463 years, or +/-0.20%
    7. the probability of matching of 518 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 538 year period is very small.

  5. Other correlations -- with measured 14C/12C quantities
    1. the measured 14C/12C quantities are what exists in the tree rings today, they are objective empirical data
    2. measurements of 14C and 12C quantities in samples are highly accurate and precise
    3. 14C decays over time so older samples will have less 14C than younger samples, all things being equal, and
    4. samples of the same actual calendar age will have decayed by the same amount so they will have the same levels today
    5. the decay pattern follows an exponential curve

    6. measured 14C/12C levels can also be quantified by mathematically converting them to a "14C age" by a simple exponential formula for linear comparison to calendar age
      (14C/12C level today) = (14C/12C standardized level) x (1/2)^("14C age"/5730)

      • this formula assumes a constant 14C/12C atmospheric level that has been standardized for these age calculations, but
      • 14C/12C atmospheric levels are not constant, so
      • results will need to be corrected to account for atmospheric level changes over time, however
      • uncorrected values can be compared against chronological data sets, like tree ring chronologies and
      • this comparison provides the information needed to correct the results for greater accuracy

    7. correlating each dendrochronology's calendar age to measured 14C/12C levels quantitified as "14C age" has been done

    8. the consilience from all chronologies for the "14C age" to dendrochronological calendar age correlations being virtually identical provides extremely high confidence in the accuracy and precision of these ages.
    9. Note ... IF Libby's complaint, which you are so inordinately fond of (1963? really?), about the Bristlecone pines were true then:
      • it applies equally to ALL the dendrochronologies (and other chronologies) because they show the same pattern, and
      • IF TRUE would only take ~8% out of the age of the earth at 10,000 years ... it would still be easily over 11,476 years old based on just the tree rings ... it isn't a 'get out of jail free' card ...


  6. Minimum 2013 age of the earth is:
    8,713 years old, possibly 37+/-6 years older, by Bristlecone pines
    10,493 years old +/-10 years, by European oaks
    12,474 years old +/-30 years, by European oaks and pines

If this list is too much then start with just the Bristlecone pines.

I'm not going to reply to your other posts at this point -- I want you to concentrate on just these aspects of chronological measurements before we move on to the varves. You can revisit your comments when we get there.

I'm also going to expect you to not reply to any of my unanswered posts to date for the same reason.

This is the only way I see to keep the posting under control

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : added images

Edited by RAZD, : Libby


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 101 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 2:28 AM mindspawn has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by mindspawn, posted 12-12-2013 7:28 AM RAZD has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(6)
Message 111 of 119 (713347)
12-12-2013 10:11 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by mindspawn
12-12-2013 7:28 AM


Re: SUMMARY -- regrouping
We are both repeating ourselves therefore its time to conclude this debate. Of course I believe the cognitive dissonance is yours, you will see that my main points have not changed, and you still have not confronted them. Instead you repeat old arguments:

Cognitive dissonance is not caused by a lack of evidence ...

I keep repeating the objective empirical evidence that refutes your claims. You keep repeating your falsified claims with more assertion and obstinate persistence, and grab at straws and run off to chase rabbit holes rather than deal with the issues. That is cognitive dissonance behavior.

1) Tree rings: We differ in the accuracy of the cross-matching
Your post above is repetitive. I showed you that the methodology is wrong when establishing these chronologies, and the methodology will show matches even when there is no match. You still have not showed me how they corrected the methodology in the above chronologies to get greater accuracy. ...

You showed me one paper that suggest that care should be taken in assembling individual chronologies because errors of alignment and questionable matches could occur.

You have not demonstrated that such errors did occur in the published dendrochronologies. Curiously I know of one and how it was questioned at the time and then determined to be inaccurate ... by dendrochronologists.

Dendrochronologists know this -- it is what they study, mindspawn. The paper was written by a dendrochronologist. They look for this kind of error and replicate as much as possible to be able to ensure it doesn't happen.

That paper also showed how to obtain accurate matches when multiple matches showed up in the data.

The problem you face is that dendrochronologies are not built with one stick matched to a second stick which is matched to a third stick, etc etc etc ...

Chronologies are build from 30 plus sample for every band of the assembled chronology if they can be found. This is so that they can identify false matches and also check for extra or missing rings.

Do you really think a mismatch of this type would be found in 30 samples ... each one actually a random match?

This is HOW the missing rings were found in the first 18 years of the Campito chronology.

When the number of rings gets low due to the small number of samples available, the dendrochronologist deal with it as tentative possibilities and look for tertiary evidence -- a parallel chronology made from entirely different samples assembled into a chronology. When you compare independent chronologies you are testing the assembly of each against the other.

That is HOW the later 2 missing rings were found in the more ancient part of the Campito chronology.

But please note that other than two missing rings the two chronologies were exactly precisely accurately the same ... 100% identical in fact.

You just cannot get that kind of match with poorly assembled chronologies, because any mistakes will be made in different locations with a probability of match from random assembly being 1 in 4 x 10 to the power 3009 (3009 zeros).

... Under current methods any sequences , even incorrect matches, regularly match each other with over 99% accuracy, which makes a mockery of the percentages that you so easily throw around.

This can occur if one is not careful. So you learn to be careful and you learn to check for multiple matches and you learn to weed through the evidence to find a single proper match ... as demonstrated in the paper.

But finding a match in a short sequence is not finding it for the whole length of a 5,395 ring chronology overlap.

The Bristlecone pine was 100% matched in three sections with a one ring gap in the Campito chronology matched to a narrow ring in the Methuselah chronology in two places ...

quote:
  1. there is a 100% match of rings from 1962 CE to 2141 BCE,
  2. there is a 100% match of rings from 2143 BCE to 2670 BCE with the Campito rings shifted 1 year older at 2142 BCE,
  3. there is a 100% match of rings from 2672 BCE to 3435 BCE with the Campito rings shifted another year older at 2671 BCE,
  4. inserting a zero width band into the Campito chronology for the missing rings at these two locations then matches two narrow rings in the Methuselah chronology and results in a consolidated chronology extending 8,671 years from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE,
  5. an error of 2 rings between 1962 CE and 3435 BCE, in a 5397 year period, is an error of 0.037% so overall there is 99.963% match on all rings between chronologies, very high precision and accuracy.
  6. the probability of matching of 5395 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 5397 year period is "vanishingly small" ...

Replication is how you (1) find errors, (2) correct errors, (3) build confidence in the accuracy and precision.

If you build two independent chronologies and they DON'T match, THEN you know one or both are wrong.

When TWO chronologies match with 99.963% then this is objective empirical evidence that both are most likely 99.963% correct.
When THREE chronologies match with 99.5% accuracy then this is objective empirical evidence that both are most likely 99.5% correct. 3x the confidence of one pair matching ...
When FOUR chronologies match with 99.5% accuracy then this is objective empirical evidence that both are most likely 99.5% correct. 6x the confidence of one pair matching ...

In addition we KNOW these four dendrochronologies are accurate for:

  • 1884 CE evidence for volcanic eruption of krakatoa in 1882 CE
  • 1816 CE evidence for volcanic eruption of Tambora in 1816 CE
  • 536 CE evidence for volcanic eruption in 534 CE
  • 44 BCE evidence for volcanic eruption of Mt Etna in 44 BCE
  • 2626 +/-10 years BCE evidence cross correlated from Egyptian tomb archaeologically dated to 2626 BCE

And there is no major visible change in tree ring widths for more ancient dates ...

This isn't fantasy it is objective evidence

And you keep failing to provide any real evidence to support your position, you just assert and assume.

quote:
One thing you could do would be to -- briefly -- list your mechanisms for altering the time scales, one by one, and explaining where these 'errors' occur in the chronologies, why they occur, and the objective empirical evidence that they did occur.

  1. list your mechanism ... rampant misalignment due to ineptitude and ignorance ... except that you don't have evidence that this is the fact ... the number of peer reviewed papers is strong evidence that this is not the case ...
  2. explain where these errors occur ... not done
  3. explain why they occurred (and were not detected) ... because dendrochronologists are bumbling idiots that can't see the forest for the trees ... ... except you don't have evidence that this is the fact ... and the number of peer reviewed papers is strong evidence that this is not the case ...
  4. provide objective empirical evidence that they did occur (in the chronologies) ... not done.

So other than wild assumption and grasping at straws, what do you have?

  1. How do you know that the Bristlecone pine chronology is wrong
  2. Where specifically does the Bristlecone pine chronology go wrong
  3. What is your evidence that the Bristlecone pine chronology is actually wrong
  4. What specifically was the cause for it being wrong
  5. How wrong is it ... 1 year? 10 years? 37 years?
  6. What is the correction that needs to be made
  7. Where specifically should corrections be made
  8. What is your evidence that this will result in correct ages

There is no point in chasing the rest of your points until you make a basic effort to deal with this issue. We can get to them WHEN you have finished with the Bristlecone pine chronology in particular and dendrochronologies in general to the level required for rational understanding:

Be specific, support your assertions with evidence, tell me why the chronology needs to be corrected, and demonstrate how to correct the chronology.

Just saying 'maybe they are wrong' is not a strong argument.

Until you can provide this, the objective empirical evidence shows that the dendrochronologies are indeed correct and your denial of this is

de•lu•sion -noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)

  1. a. The act or process of deluding.
    b. The state of being deluded.
  2. A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
  3. Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.

Confirmation Bias, Cognitive Dissonance, cherry picking and idée fixes, are not the tools of an open-mind or an honest skeptic, and continued belief in the face of contradictory evidence is delusion.

Common delusion (def #2), like ignorance, is curable by learning ...

In closing let me suggest that if you cannot actually demonstrate that the Bristlecone pine chronology is actually wrong -- and by demonstrate I mean show evidence of the errors -- then you should in all honesty concede that you cannot demonstrate that the Bristlecone pine chronology is in error, regardless of what you believe.

Likewise if you cannot actually demonstrate that the European oak chronology is actually wrong -- and by demonstrate I mean show evidence of the errors -- then you should in all honesty concede that you cannot demonstrate that the European oak chronology is in error, regardless of what you believe.

And if you cannot actually demonstrate that the Preboral pine chronology is actually wrong -- and by demonstrate I mean show evidence of the errors -- then you should in all honesty concede that you cannot demonstrate that the Preboral pine chronology is in error, regardless of what you believe.

Concede this and we can move on to the varves.

Enjoy.

..

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : ..

Edited by RAZD, : historical data

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

Edited by RAZD, : end comment

Edited by RAZD, : M dates corrected


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 110 by mindspawn, posted 12-12-2013 7:28 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 112 of 119 (713677)
12-15-2013 11:55 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by mindspawn
12-12-2013 7:28 AM


Moving on -- Varves ?
If you want to let the dendrochronology rest for a while, perhaps we can move on to varves ...

Message 107

Your own link claimed that the dust settled regularly over the whole year. I don't see the relevance of the settling velocity for your argument, if the dust sinks slowly or fast, there is a regular amount of dust settling on the lake floor during the entire year. The only factor that changes the sediment density on the lake floor is the diatom die-offs because the dust is constant. We seem to be in agreement on this.

Yes, in low lying coastal regions the water table is dominated by salt water from the ocean. In spring tides, this would affect all lakes close to the ocean. This would kill freshwater diatoms who die when exposed to salt water. I have presented my evidence in earlier posts. I need your evidence that freshwater diatoms definitely CANNOT be affected by the rising salt water table in a lake next to the sea. I do not see that as a possibility, please tell me how its possible for the deepest freshwater algae during an algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu to survive regular influxes of salt water.

Message 108

Like I said before, its the very uniqueness of the locations used that are damning for evolutionary timeframes.

ANY location would be better than Suigetsu. They did not take into account that diatoms have regular die-offs that are not always annual. Any study on Lake Suigetsu which claims that the lake shows annual layering should have gone into great depth to explain away the fact that algae does not often have just one annual die-off.

Because Suigetsu is not a conclusive location, nearly anywhere else is a better location. Nearly every river on earth with a wide catchment area flows into a lake or the sea. There would be recognizable annual sedimentation layers in thousands of locations across earth .....and yet of all these locations the only places that seem to have consilience are ones with a strange set of circumstances like Lake Suigetsu. The rareness of the consilience is ridiculous.

It would be fascinating to dig down into nearly every lake on the planet, I predict you would find a strong trend that organic matter in annual layers in other lakes have way too little carbon for the annual layers in which they lie. Thus I predict that a definite 3500 year old layer in most lakes would show a 30 000 plus carbon date in a location that has more definite annual layers than the dodgy dates of Suigetsu.

The varves in Cariaco basin are created by....... guess what....... algae/diatoms. But the uniqueness of this location is that its a uniquely anoxic ocean, and these are anoxic diatoms. Their die-off are caused by nitrate and silicon cycles.
http://www.geol.sc.edu/...Page/Thunell%20et%20al.%202008.pdf

Message 112

3) Lake Suigetsu
You still have not explained how those freshwater algae blooms manage to escape the regular spring tide influx of salt water from the adjacent saltwater lake. If river water can flow through the water table and land bridge of Lake Suigetsu to reach the sea, surely sea water can flow through the land bridge and water table to reach the Lake during spring tides. You have not faced this.

Is that a fair summary of your current stand on Lake Suigetsu?

First I would like to discuss the Cariaco Basin varves and then compare them to the Lake Suigetsu varves.

You were hot to discuss these with Coyote ... so are we done with tree rings?

We can start the discussion by reviewing what varves are (some of this has been presented before), and what they aren't:

Lake and Marine Varve Basics

Rhythmites(1)

quote:
A rhythmite consists of layers of sediment or sedimentary rock which are laid down with an obvious periodicity and regularity. They may be created by annual processes such as seasonally varying deposits reflecting variations in the runoff cycle, by shorter term processes such as tides, or by longer term processes such as periodic floods.

Varves(2)

quote:
A varve is an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock.

Of the many rhythmites found in the geological record, varves are one of the most important and illuminating to studies of past climate change. Varves are amongst the smallest-scale events recognised in stratigraphy.

Varves form in a variety of marine and lacustrine depositional environments from seasonal variation in clastic, biological, and chemical sedimentary processes.

The classic varve archetype is a light / dark coloured couplet deposited in a glacial lake. The light layer usually comprises a coarser laminaset of silt and fine sand deposited under higher energy conditions when meltwater introduces sediment load into the lake water. During winter months, when meltwater and associated suspended sediment input is reduced, and often when the lake surface freezes, fine clay-size sediment is deposited forming a dark coloured laminaset.


The difference between a rhythmite and a varve is that the rhythmite can have any periodicity, even be variable, but the varve is strictly an annual layering process. Varves can vary from barely distinguishable to dramatic contrast.

One of the ways to ensure you have an annual varve system is to look for a cycle of life and death in organisms that are present in one half of the varve (growing season) but are absent in the other half of the varve (non-growing season). Seasonal markers like diatom shells and foraminifera shells have been used, forming a white layer in contrast to a dark sediment layer.

Synchroneity of Tropical and High-Latitude Atlantic Temperatures over the Last Glacial Termination(3)


Varved sediments from Cariaco Basin core PL07-39PC

With a well marked layering system, such as is shown above, the layers can be counted, just like tree rings, to form a chronology.

Not all deposits are varves or rhytmites, as there can be many deposits that occur in random sequences with no discernable pattern or regularity.

The geological principle of superposition applies to varves, rhythmites and other sedimentary deposits:

Principle of Superposition(4)

quote:
The law of superposition (or the principle of superposition) is a key axiom based on observations of natural history that is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy and so of other geology dependent natural sciences:

Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.

Varves and rhythmites provide a means to identify different layers accurately and varves in particular can be used to provide dates for the layers. Rhymthites and other sedimentary layering do provide relative dating and other means are needed to provide actual ages. Similarly such other means for dating sediments can be used to validate and confirm a varve system. The sediments in Lake Lisan, for instance are not varves and they used radiometric dating of aragonites matched with the sediment levels:

Calibration of the 14C time scale to 440 ka by 234U–230Th dating of Lake Lisan sediments (last glacial Dead Sea) (abstract)(5)

quote:
A new comparison of 14C dates with 234U-230Th ages is presented of aragonites from Lake Lisan, the last Glacial Dead Sea, between ∼20 - 52 cal-ka-BP. The Lisan data are coincident with the coral based 14C-calendar age calibration through the continuous portion of the curve to 23.5 cal-ka-BP, and with the additional ‘checkpoints’ at ∼30 and ∼40 cal-ka-BP. The agreement with the corals provides evidence for the accuracy of the U-Th and 14C ages, and indicates that Lisan aragonites can potentially be used to generate a nearly continuous record of the atmospheric 14C variations through this crucial time interval. ...

Radiometric dating will be discussed later.

Because varves are an annual time-sequence deposition process, a core taken in a lake with varves will have new layers on top and old layers on the bottom. As with tree rings, individual cores can be cross-checked with others taken from different locations to account for false layers or missing layers. Cores can only be taken in sections due to the physical limitations of the equipment, so cores need to be taken in a manner to overlap ends of sections to ensure continuity of the data.

Like tree rings there can be floating chronologies and absolute chronologies. If an artifact in a floating chronology can be absolutely dated, then the chronology can be tetherred by the artifact age. If markers in a floating chronology can be matched to markers in an absolute chronology, then the floating chronology can be tethered to the absolute chronology.

Organic artifacts (leafs, twigs, insect bodies, etc) and inorganic artifacts (volcanic tuff, flood rubble, etc) can be deposited in the lake, and then be buried by later layers, so their location in the cores provides direct evidence of their age. Because they contain carbon that was taken up when living they will have both 14C and 12C. The 14C decays over time (along an exponential curve), and thus the ratio of 14C/12C in a sample changes with age and these samples can be used as markers to tether a floating chronology to an absolute chronology (like the tree rings).

Care needs to be taken in choosing core sites to avoid taking cores near inlets where false layers from storm runoff and the like would be common.

Like tree rings there can be variation from year to year in the thickness of the varves, but unlike tree rings the older layers can become compressed by the weight of the other layers and become thin and harder to distinguish. This also means that absolute thickness at one depth cannot be simply compared to absolute thickness at a different depth to indicate climate changes, but the compression must be taken into account.

Because these layers are annual they can have high precision and accuracy in the measured lengths of their chronologies, and errors should be similar to tree ring chronologies, producing high confidence in their results.

One of the things that affects rhythmite and varve formation is particle size, and varves can have different layers with different size particles, some that settle faster than others:

Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity(6)

quote:
Every material has its own suspension and settling velocity. The suspension velocity is the speed of water above which the water will pick up the material and hold it in suspension. The settling velocity is the speed below which the material will be dropped out of suspension and will settle out of the water.

The relative sizes of gravel, sand, silt, and clay particles are shown below:

Sand and gravel are both large and dense. In addition, they have a small surface area per unit volume since they are roughly spherical. So these types of particles have a high suspension velocity.


13.6 Colloids(7)

quote:
When finely divided clay particles are dispersed throughout water, they do not remain suspended but eventually settle out of the water because of the gravitational pull. The dispersed clay particles are much larger than molecules and consist of many thousands or even millions of atoms.

Particle Size Analysis Lab(8)

quote:
The connection between particle size and settling rate is expressed by Stoke's Law. This relationship shows that small particles, those exposing high specific surface area (m2 g-1), produce more resistance to settling through the surrounding solution than large particles and, hence, settle at slower velocities

Stoke's Law :

V = (D^2g(d1-d2)/(18n)

The formula shows that the settling velocity, V, is directly proportional to the square of the particle's effective diameter, D; the acceleration of gravity, g; and the difference between the density of the particle, d1, and density of the liquid, d2; but inversely proportional to the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, n. The density of water and its viscosity both change in a manner so that particles settle faster with increased temperature. Hence, it may be necessary to apply temperature correction factors as explained with the procedure.

Stoke's Law can be condensed to V=kD^2 by assuming constant values for all components except the effective diameter of soil particles. Then, for conditions at 30 degrees C, k=11241. For particles size values in centimeters, the formula yields settling velocity, V, in centimeters per second. Because soil particles do not meet the requirements of being smooth spheres, exact conformance to Stoke's Law is not realized.


Soil Colloids(9)

quote:
The colloidal state refers to a two-phase system in which one material in a very finely divided state is dispersed through second phase.

The examples are:

Solid in liquid - Clay in water (dispersion of clay in water)
Liquid in gas -Fog or clouds in atmosphere

The clay fraction of the soil contains particles less than 0.002 mm in size. Particles less than 0.001 mm size possess colloidal properties and are known as soil colloids.


If we use 0.002 mm (0.0002 cm) for clay in the above formula we get

V = 11241(0.0002)^2 = 0.00044964 cm/s
= 1.62 cm/hr = 38.8 cm/day
= 15.3 in/day.

As you can see the theoretical settling velocity of clay according to Stoke's Law would be very, very slowly. In a 100 ft deep lake a new clay particle deposited at the surface would theoretically take ~80 days to reach the bottom. Actual times are longer due to the interaction of charged clay particles with water, and because the clay particles are not spherical, but it would take days if not weeks or months for new clay from rainstorms to settle to the bottom. This is especially true in the center of the lake as the new inflow must take time to mix with the lake water and get dispersed sufficiently to reach the center area. This means that a lake can act as a buffer to average out all the clay sediment being introduced to the lake by the inflow: even large variations in inflow will have little effect on the amount of clay settling to the bottom at the center of the lake.

This means that clay layers in varves are strong indicators of annual events, as they have to occur over many months with no other depositions or disturbances.

Enjoy.



References
  1. Wikipedia.com, Rhythmite, [2013, November 29]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhythmite
  2. Wikipedia.com, Varves, [2013, November 29]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve
  3. Lea, D.W., Pak, D.K., Peterson, L.C., Hughen, K.A., Synchroneity of Tropical and High-Latitude Atlantic Temperatures over the Last Glacial Termination, Science Vol 301, Nr 5638, p 1361-1364, 5 September 2003 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/lea2003/ (abstract)
  4. Wikipedia.com, Principle of Superposition, [2013, November 29]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition
  5. Schramm, A., Stein, M., Goldstein, S.L., Calibration of the 14C time scale to 440 ka by 234U–230Th dating of Lake Lisan sediments (last glacial Dead Sea), Earth and Planetary Science Letters vol 175, 2000 p 27–40 (abstract) http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0012821X99002794
  6. Cooke, R., Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity, Mountain Empire Community College.© 2013 [2013, December 2] http://water.me.vccs.edu/concepts/velocitysusp.htm
  7. Prenhall.com, 13.6 Colloids, Chemistry, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education © 2002 [2013, December 2] http://wps.prenhall.com/...objects/3312/3391718/blb1306.html
  8. Farrel, P., Particle Size Analysis Lab, Soil, Water, and Climate Dept, University of Minnesota, © 2010-2013 [2013, December 2] http://www.d.umn.edu/~pfarrell/lab_8.htm
  9. AgriInfo.in, Soil Colloids, Introduction to Soil Science, AgriInfo.in © 2011 [2013, December 2] http://www.agriinfo.in/default.aspx?page=topic&superid=4&...

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added

Edited by RAZD, : added basic varve information for later use

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mindspawn, posted 12-12-2013 7:28 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 113 of 119 (714321)
12-21-2013 2:02 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 4:22 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2a - dendrochronology pt 1
It's been 9 days since your last post.

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:

So you are going with amazing coincidence instead of actual consilience.

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.

There are thousands of tree ring chronologies around the world, but only three anchored chronologies that extend back over 8,000 years.

The locations are not chosen at random, nor are they chosen for remoteness, they are chosen because they have a strong annual signal, wherever that is found, and they are chosen for the length of record for anchored tree ring chronologies.

Nor are they chosen for radiocarbon consilience, that is just plain absurd. How would you know what the radiocarbon levels in the organic samples would be until they are tested -- after they have been recorded for layer age?

Or are you saying that scientists discard information that doesn't fit their conspiracy?

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)

So you don't know what circular reasoning is, in addition to not understanding consilience and making false statements that show your failure to understand what has been presented.

Measuring tree rings for annual calendar dates and then finding out what 14C/12C levels are in the rings and comparing those to calendar dates is not circular reasoning, it is scientific data collection.

Comparing three such chronologies for age and climate is not circular reasoning, it is finding out how well they match in their data.

If the correlations are in error, then it would show up with such comparisons, which is why the comparisons are made: it is a scientific test of the replicability of the results.

Comparing three such chronologies for age and 14C/12C levels is not circular reasoning, it is finding out how well they match in their data.

If the correlations are in error they would show up with such comparisons. That no significant problems are found is validation of the techniques used, the care and precision of the scientists involve and the accuracy of the data.

The fact that three such chronologies show highly similar correlations with climate and highly similar correlations with 14C/12C levels is not circular reasoning, it is consilience of two different sets of data that have similar results -- that is what consilience means.

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.

umm -- because that was the first test of his method? Back when they first started doing radiocarbon dating, and using an old value of half-life that is shorter than what we know today? Before the other chronologies were completed?

Would you like to actually quote what Libby actually said from an actual paper on that issue? I'm betting it doesn't say what you claim -- so you have an opportunity to prove me wrong.

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?

Curiously it doesn't matter what you think, what matters are the facts shown by the evidence:

(1) when compared to the two independent oak chronologies the (Methuselah) Bristlecone pine chronology was shown to be missing ~37 annual rings compared to the oaks.

(2) a second independent Bristlecone pine chronology showed that missing rings were common in Bristlecone pines, with one occurring in 18 years in some of the samples, that NO extra rings were observed, and two more missing rings were found in ~5000 years of common record.

(3) that growth begins in July during the early part of the season and shuts down in August when temperatures get too cold.

... this is counter intuitive... frankly its illogical.

However that bit of opinion is still unable to alter reality. A lot of scientific knowledge is counter intuitive, but that alone is no reason to reject it. That you find it illogical just means you have false precepts in your logic, not that reality is different.

This is why science TESTS concepts rather than just make assumptions based on intuition and logic.

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.

Again, it doesn't really matter what Libby said (if he actually did) because the rings have been tested by comparison with other chronologies and found to be missing ~37 annual rings in 7600 years of record rather than have multiple rings.

The simplest explanation is that all the tree rings do in fact show annual growth and that they are accurate and precise and that the difference between them and the 14C/12C levels is due to changes in atmospheric 14C over time ... amazingly a fact we are already aware of and can document.

"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."

Are you aware of the concept of quote mining?

Science is NEVER absolutely certain about anything.

Indeed cross-dating is a method that can be misused or done somewhat haphazardly if one is not careful, and there are some documented instances of this happening, but when that occurs they can (and have been) be discovered by comparisons with other chronologies and finding discrepancies.

And what is the result of Yamaguchi's study? Did he conclude that in fact dendrochronology ceased to exist as a legitimate science?

Or did he discuss ways and means to ensure that mistakes were not made.

Further I note that you have supplied absolutely no information that this kind of error actually occurred in the three dendrochronologies we have discussed.

Could have happened does not mean did happen, possible careless errors are not an argument that the whole caboodle is wrong in any way.

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.

He is another scientist in a long line of scientists that have been misquoted, misrtepresented and misportrayed by shyster creationist sites that don't tell the whole story and quote mine statements to pretend that science is full of errors and mistakes.

If the system were unreliable then the three chronologies would not have the consilience they have in both climate and 14C correlations.

Cross-checking was done by comparing chronologies based on climate data and intentionally did NOT use 14C/12C levels until after that was completed so that it would NOT be forced to fit the 14C/12C -- and yes I have provided you with the links to this information.

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.

Another false statement. Neither carbon or thorium dating were used to build the chronologies.

And curiously you opinion over what t-values should be used is rather irrelevant, as you are not a dendrochronologist with practical experience in the process or knowledge of the checks made to validate matches.

The only thing used in making each independent tree ring chronology is the matching of tree rings by the climate information -- the difference in ring thicknesses. Nor were the chronologies built comparing only two sticks at a time, they used many samples that all showed the same climate patterns.

Cross-checking is then done to compare independent chronologies. This is a test of the chronologies made, and if they compare with minimal error below the level of significance for the errors found (inside the margin of error) then it just doesn't matter how low the t-values were, because the tests validate the results.

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)

Aside from missing the actual point of probability calculations ...

This was a grossly simplified example of ring matching to show you how improbable it was for two independent chronologies to match accurately and precisely for over 5000 years of record.

It seems you missed that part, so let me be a little clearer: actual tree ring widths are used rather than bundled widths as I did in the example. Bundled widths would have much much higher match rates than using the actual widths.

Think of using 10 width bundles instead of four:

Take all the thicknesses recorded and order them from thinnest to thickest and let

  1. = the thicknesses of the first one tenth of the data with the thinnest thicknesses
  2. = the thicknesses of the second one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  3. = the thicknesses of the third one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  4. = the thicknesses of the fourth one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  5. = the thicknesses of the fifth one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  6. = the thicknesses of the sixth one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  7. = the thicknesses of the seventh one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  8. = the thicknesses of the eighth one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  9. = the thicknesses of the ninth one tenth of the data with the next thinnest thicknesses
  10. = the last set of thicknesses, the thickest one tenth of the thicknesses in the data

Thus A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J 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 with 1/10th of the rings on the second chronology ...

Now the probability that the next rings will also match is 1 in 10 ... if they are completely random and unrelated sequences ... 10% ... so you will still be able to find a number of such cross correlations. This would happen about 1/100th of the times on average ...

The probability that the next ring will match is (1/10)x(1/10) or 1 in 100 ... 1% ... and you can still likely find some such instances, though now it is on the order of 1 in a thousand times ...

The probability that the fourth ring will match is (1/10)^3 or 1 in 1000 ... 0.1% ... and your likelihood of finding matches is getting smaller, significantly smaller ... you are now down to 1 in 10,000 probability of a match and this is with only 4 rings ...

For two chronologies over 5000 years long to match ring widths over their entire length -- as was demonstrated by Lamarche for Bristlecone pines -- with these bundled thicknesses, the probability of this occurring by random error is:

p = (1/10)^(5000) = 1 in 1x10^5000

Thus it would be mind boggling amazing for these two chronologies to match over such an extended period of time ... if it were not for the probability that they are actually measuring the same thing, where the probability expected would be 1 or close enough to be in the margin of error.

If you had three people independently measuring the time between two passages of the earth between the sun and Arcturus, would you be amazed if they came in with results within a second or two of each other?

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.

Amazingly that is just what Lamarche did with his independent chronology of Bristlecone pines compared to the Methuselah chronology, the first 18 rings of his chronology were for the years after the Methuselah chronology was made, the rest of it match actual annual values (not bundled values) for the whole length except in two places - places where there was a thin ring in the Methuselah record and the chronologies matched 100% of the time when zero width rings (missing rings) were counted in the Campito Mountain chronology -- a precise and accurate duplication of annual ring sequences for 5,385 rings.

So you see, what scientists are satisfied with is in practice sufficient to obtain accurate and precise results, regardless of your opinion.

If you are unable to illustrate an entire sequence, then your argument is based on hope not fact. ...

The accuracy and precision is demonstrated by the consilience between all four independent chronologies. That you don't/can't/won't understand this is not the fault of the data, science or results.

If you are unable to document any actual errors in the sequences of either of the four chronologies we have discussed then your argument is based on hope not fact. And you need to demonstrate not just errors in one chronology, but matching errors in the other three. Hand waving possible errors is not documenting actual errors.

... This is a point we will never agree on, because dendrochronologists seem satisfied with low T-values ...

They are satisfied with t-values that have been demonstrated to produce accurately replicatable results. They are satisfied that four independent chronologies do in fact demonstrate the accuracy and precision of the methods used.

... and cross checks with carbon or Thorium dating, this system is faulty if carbon dating is faulty.

Again this is a fantasy you have made up, not reality.

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrrty

Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 4:22 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 114 of 119 (714323)
12-21-2013 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 4:55 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2b - dendrochronology pt 2
continuing ...

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?

Why not?

It doesn't really matter why, what matters is that they do exist and as such they provide valuable information that helps demonstrate the earth is old.

The fact that these trees have evolved a way to live there should not surprise anyone -- they live near the tree line because the tree line is marked by the edge of where trees do in fact live.

That they live a long time is not a big surprise if they live in a place where they have no predators or diseases, so that their only challenge is living another year -- a challenge that does not depend on the age of the tree but on it's ability to live near the tree line, an ability that is demonstrated by trees living near the tree line.

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.

What you believe has no effect on reality. You need to provide evidence not make assumptions.

For instance you could present evidence of the magnetic field strength along with the correlations of 14C to chronological age. This was made by JonF:

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

And ...?

There has also been demonstrated no change in decay rates under vastly higher magnetic fields, so no, that is not an invalidation of the measured decay rates.

Unless you can provide an actual mechanism to change the decay rates dramatically and permanently this is a non-argument.

?? 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.

Sadly, for you, what is demonstrated is the lengths scientists go to validate results. They don't just "fill in the gaps with other trees" they test the results with independent chronologies. That these tests have demonstrated accuracy and precision of over 99% means that you frantically waving this argument again and again is pointless -- those errors did not occur, in plain fact, because the consilience would not have occurred. They tested for this error and did not find it.

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.

If my cognitive dissonance is only due to the probably misquoted statements of a scientist made in the 1960's when I am using up-to-date information, and not accepting his word as the word of god, then color me guilty.

Meanwhile, how about you provide evidence that Libby -- as quoted -- was correct?

You do realize, I hope, that using Libby means that you are arguing that 14C dating is 100% correct ...

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 103 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 4:55 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(1)
Message 115 of 119 (714325)
12-21-2013 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 5:23 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2c - dendrochronology pt 3
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.

So you don't understand wilting point.

It doesn't matter -- because study of the actual growing pattern shows growth only during the early part of the short season and that by the time the wilting point was reached (for only the top 8" of soil) the trees had already started the process of going into dormancy for the year. They did not respond to late rainfall in the area, a response that would be expected if they were actually at the actual wilting point AND moisture controlled.

Your point is invalidated by actual measurement of actual growth patterns.

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).

Agreed, you have very clearly and repeatedly said the same false information and bogus arguments. The fact that you don't understand that your arguments are invalidated doesn't seem to stop you from clearly repeating them in the pointless hope that your opinion is worth more than facts and reality. It isn't.

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 104 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 5:23 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


(2)
Message 116 of 119 (714332)
12-21-2013 3:23 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by mindspawn
12-11-2013 5:50 AM


Re: SUMMARY reply 2d - dendrochronology pt 4 quote mines and creationists
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.

The laughter of ignorance does not affect reality.

Once again it appears that you do not understand what the paper said.

Sliding one timeline over the other until you find matches is the first level of comparison, this is the normal process. When it produces numerous results then you look for reasons, and those were discussed.

Now you can compare curves based on data on 1st level matches and you can then take derivatives of the curves and compare them again for matches, which is similar to what Yamaguchi did.

Then he found only one match.

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.

Curiously I cannot find that statement in his paper ... because you made it up.

And this still does not solve your problem of 100% match between two independent Bristlecone pine chronologies over 5,000 years long overlap, the 99.9% match between two independent oak chronologies and the 99.5% match between the oaks and bristlecone pines.

Wave this around as much as you like, but it still fails to provide any evidence of actual errors having been made. You still fail to deal with this from Message 109:

This is what science and objective empirical evidence says:

  1. Bristlecone pine -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
    1. the 'old' chronology (Methuselah, White Mountains), anchored by living trees to 1953 CE and extending 8,653 years to 6,700 BCE,
    2. a 'new' chronology (Campito Mountain), anchored by living trees to 1971 CE with 5,403 annual values extending to 3,433 BCE, (corrected to 5,405 years to 3,435 BCE see below),
    3. no extra ring growth has been recorded in either chronology, even when climate was favorable for a stress ring
    4. frost rings were recorded in both chronologies
    5. one missing ring was found in some tree samples during the first 18 years of the Campito chronology
    6. it is very probable that low sample size could result in failing to identify a missing ring in all of the samples
    7. the overlap period is 5,397 years long from 1962 CE to 3,435 BCE with only two errors,
    8. one missing ring was found in all samples of the Campito chronology at (8000-5859M=) 2,141 BCE, and this matches a narrow ring in Methuselah chronology, and
    9. a second missing ring was found in all samples of the Campito chronology at (8000-5320M=) 2,680 BCE, and this matches a narrow ring in Methuselah chronology,
    10. there is a 100% match of rings from 1962 CE to 2140 BCE,
    11. there is a 100% match of rings from 2142 BCE to 2679 BCE with the Campito rings shifted 1 year older at 2141 BCE,
    12. there is a 100% match of rings from 2681 BCE to 3435 BCE with the Campito rings shifted another year older at 2680 BCE,
    13. inserting a zero width band into the Campito chronology for the missing rings at these two locations then matches two narrow rings in the Methuselah chronology and results in a consolidated chronology extending 8,671 years from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE,
    14. an error of 2 rings between 1962 CE and 3435 BCE, in a 5397 year period, is an error of 0.037% so overall there is 99.963% match on all rings between chronologies, very high precision and accuracy.
    15. the probability of matching of 5395 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 5397 year period is "vanishingly small" ...

  2. European oak -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
    1. the Irish oak chronology, anchored by living trees at 1971 CE and extending 9,951 years to 7980 BCE
    2. the German oak chronology, anchored to living trees at 2002 CE and extending 10,482 years to 8,480 BCE
    3. combining these two chronologies together results in a consolidated chronology extending 10,482 years from 2002 CE to 8,480 BCE
    4. the documented error between these two chronologies when compared statistically is <10 years, or +/-5 years from the average values
    5. laboratory precision accounted for almost all variability between the data sets
    6. unfortunately where in the overlap these errors occur is not documented, but this is an error of only 0.102%
    7. the overlap period is 9,951 years long from 1971 CE to 7,980 BCE with <10 years difference
    8. the probability of matching of 9,941 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 9,951 year period is also "vanishingly small" ...

  3. Crossdating -- between the consolidated Bristlecone pine chronology and the consolidated European oak chronology:
    1. the documented error between these two consolidated chronologies is 37+/-6 years
    2. the overlap period is 8,671 years long from 1971 CE to 6700 BCE with 37 years difference, an error of 0.43%
    3. the Bristlecone pine chronology was shorter, too young, by 37 years at the end of the overlap,
    4. there is a high probability that this error is due to missing rings at the ancient end of the chronology when sample numbers are small
    5. the probability of matching of 8,634 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 8,671 year period is also "vanishingly small" and this is compounded by the "vanishingly small" probability for each of these consolidated chronologies being composed of randomly assembled bands ... so I say it is "vanishingly small squared" ... ?

  4. German preboral pine -- a tethered annual tree ring count chronology:
    1. the German pine chronology is tethered to the German oak chronology at 7942 BCE to 8,480 BCE and extends to 10,461 BCE
    2. the overlap period between the German pine chronology and the German oak chronology is 538 years long from 7942 BCE to 8,480 BCE
    3. the dendrochronological crossdating resulted in a difference of only 8 yr with respect to the published 14C wiggle-match position used for IntCal98 ... t=4.3 so it is a strong correlation
    4. the documented error between these two chronologies when compared statistically was reported conservatively at +/-20 years to account for the relatively short period of overlap, an error of +/-3.7%
    5. the consolidated oak and pine chronology extends 12,463 years from 2002 CE to 10,461 BCE
    6. total error for oaks and pines would be +/-5 plus +/-20 = +/-25 years in 12,463 years, or +/-0.20%
    7. the probability of matching of 518 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 538 year period is very small.

  5. Other correlations -- with measured 14C/12C quantities
    1. the measured 14C/12C quantities are what exists in the tree rings today, they are objective empirical data
    2. measurements of 14C and 12C quantities in samples are highly accurate and precise
    3. 14C decays over time so older samples will have less 14C than younger samples, all things being equal, and
    4. samples of the same actual calendar age will have decayed by the same amount so they will have the same levels today
    5. the decay pattern follows an exponential curve

    6. measured 14C/12C levels can also be quantified by mathematically converting them to a "14C age" by a simple exponential formula for linear comparison to calendar age
      (14C/12C level today) = (14C/12C standardized level) x (1/2)^("14C age"/5730)

      • this formula assumes a constant 14C/12C atmospheric level that has been standardized for these age calculations, but
      • 14C/12C atmospheric levels are not constant, so
      • results will need to be corrected to account for atmospheric level changes over time, however
      • uncorrected values can be compared against chronological data sets, like tree ring chronologies and
      • this comparison provides the information needed to correct the results for greater accuracy

    7. correlating each dendrochronology's calendar age to measured 14C/12C levels quantitified as "14C age" has been done

    8. the consilience from all chronologies for the "14C age" to dendrochronological calendar age correlations being virtually identical provides extremely high confidence in the accuracy and precision of these ages.
    9. Note ... IF Libby's complaint, which you are so inordinately fond of (1963? really?), about the Bristlecone pines were true then:
      • it applies equally to ALL the dendrochronologies (and other chronologies) because they show the same pattern, and
      • IF TRUE would only take ~8% out of the age of the earth at 10,000 years ... it would still be easily over 11,476 years old based on just the tree rings ... it isn't a 'get out of jail free' card ...


  6. Minimum 2013 age of the earth is:
    8,713 years old, possibly 37+/-6 years older, by Bristlecone pines
    10,493 years old +/-10 years, by European oaks
    12,474 years old +/-30 years, by European oaks and pines

One thing you could do would be to -- briefly -- list your mechanisms for altering the time scales, one by one, and explaining where these 'errors' occur in the chronologies, why they occur, and the objective empirical evidence that they did occur.

You haven't done this. At best you have suggested a mechanism based on sloppy and naive work that would likely result in wildly different results in the four chronologies, and as this doesn't match the facts can be rationally ignored as the flailings of desperation based on belief rather than evidence.

As such I consider the topic of dendrochronology concluded -- that you have failed to show any rational reason to question the results of age being determined accurately and precisely from annual tree ring counting.

Now we can move on to varves, with the caveat that -- as you have not demonstrated that the tree ring chronologies are in any way invalid -- the result of dendrochronology can be used in further arguments.

RAZD: volumes of objective empirical evidence provided that demonstrates the validity of dendrochronology in general and the four chronologies discussed in particular.

mindspawn: no objective empirical evidence presented that actually invalidates them.

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 105 by mindspawn, posted 12-11-2013 5:50 AM mindspawn has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020