Understanding through Discussion

Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9078 total)
109 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 106 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,038 Year: 6,150/6,534 Month: 343/650 Week: 113/278 Day: 11/24 Hour: 0/2

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD
Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 75 of 119 (712260)
12-01-2013 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by RAZD
11-28-2013 1:28 PM

Re: Uranium and Thorium
Four points:
this does not affect α++ or β- decay, which are the decay events involved in radiometric dating,
no half-lives were changed,
those periodicities match the solar cycle production of gamma rays, and
gamma (γ ) ray decay only changes the energy of an atom, not the isotope or the element ...

The observations affect more than just the decay of radon according to the original Purdue claims:
"Ephraim Fischbach, a physics professor at Purdue, was looking into the rate of radioactive decay of SEVERAL isotopes as a possible source of random numbers generated without any human input"

"long-term observation of the decay rate of silicon-32 and radium-226 seemed to show a small seasonal variation. The decay rate was ever so slightly faster in winter than in summer"

(silicon-32 decays by beta emission and radium-226 decays by alpha decay)

" The Purdue experimental setup consists of a radioactive source - manganese 54 - and a gamma-radiation detector. As the manganese 54 decays, it turns into chromium 54, emitting a gamma ray, which is recorded by the detector to measure the decay rate."

Manganese 54 decays via beta decay.

In reply:
1) You are incorrect. If you had read all the articles you would have seen that alpha decay and beta decay were affected.
2) If you understand that the half-life exponential formula is based on the randomness of decay you would understand that the half-lives are completely affected by the discovery that the process of decay is not random.
3) Irrelevant, due to point 1 being incorrect.

In other words, yes I am aware of gamma ray decay variation, but there is no significant measurable effect on either α++ or β- decay, or any effect on the half-lives involved in radiometric dating.

Incorrect. You are wrong as explained above. The decay exponential formula of a half-life is wholly dependent on randomness, which is assumption that there is no cause/effect that causes the decay event.

"radioactive decay is a statistical process which depends upon the instability of the particular radioisotope, but which for any given nucleus in a sample is completely unpredictable. The decay process and the observed half-life dependence of radioactivity can be predicted by assuming that individual nuclear decays are purely random events. If there are N radioactive nuclei at some time t, then the number ΔN which would decay in any given time interval Δt would be proportional to N:
where λ is a constant of proportionality (decay constant)."

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 1:28 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by RAZD, posted 12-01-2013 10:21 AM mindspawn has not replied

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 78 of 119 (712271)
12-01-2013 1:45 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by RAZD
11-28-2013 12:18 PM

Re: Mysterious Magical Weather Stress Rings
Then you have a problem when you argue against the recent Bristlecone pine tree ring chronology, because it matches (cross-checks) with the Irish oak chronology

No, in fact all the observations favor my argument. You are not seeing my argument and this weakens your position. A good debate would be to understand my position, and then respond to it, yet you are still not seeing the strength of my position.

Let me explain, if all the trees have good recent cross-checks including Bristlecone Pines in Colorado but not including White Mountain Bristlecone Pines which are in a dry area, then we have the problem that the oldest trees on earth, White Mountain BCP trees are obviously undergoing a separate annual tree ring growth pattern to the rest of the world.
1) This puts doubt on the annual nature of the white Mountain BCP tree rings because you are not showing recent cross-checks with specifically these old trees.
2) This puts doubt on the annual nature of all trees rings in past ages where the White Mountain BCP trees do actually match the rest of the world's tree ring growth patterns during times when weather was more intermittent (mid/early Holocene)

Due to the fact that I have specifically asked you repeatedly to show me that the White Mountain oldest trees on earth have recent cross-checks, and instead you have shown me that the European trees cross-check with Colorado BCP trees strongly weakens your argument and favors my argument. Where is the 1816 cross-check in the white Mountain BCP trees? (fourth request!)

A new assertion without evidence ... but how come those rings match the Bristlecone pine rings?

Because weather patterns were different then, dryness and also monsoons, these weather patterns were more compatible with multiple ring growth as per the White Mountain BCP trees. I have shown you two links showing that weather patterns were different back then compared to today's European weather. This explains the ancient matches. I am still waiting for you to show evidence for the recent White Mountain BCP cross-matching.

Actually we can go further back than than.

There is King Hezekiah's tunnel for instance


If you read the article, they were trying to prove that the tunnel wasn't recently produced, because doubters were doubting they had the technology in biblical times to build that tunnel. The carbon dates given were not exact, for example Ur-Th dating gave a date of 400bc for later stalactites in the tunnel, hardly an exact proof of biblical dates. But enough to prove their point that the tunnel was old. Of course carbon dating will prove their point because carbon dating overestimates the dates increasingly from about 2000bp and so would produce an older date.

The 14C plant dates (700-800 BCE) and U-Th stalactite dates (400 BCE) bracket the tunnel age at 400 BCE to 800 BCE, which also brackets the time of Hezekiah's rule. That's a fairly wide range for judging accuracy, but it certainly shows they are in the right ball-park and cannot be significantly off by factors of 11 or 12.

I'm not claiming a factor of 11-12 immediately after the year 2000, its the incorrect calibration during the 2000-4000BC period that creates an increasingly larger carbon dating problem especially in the 12 000-60 000 bp range. In my own view, 2000bp to 2700bp will still have carbon dates in the same "ballpark" just as you are confirming. As we get closer to 3000bp the discrepancies become emphasized until they are way out by 4000bp.

The earliest date in Fig 2 is ~2660 BCE with 7 samples and an average raw 14C 'age' of 4120 to 4130 BP (before 1950), which can then be compared against the 14C 'age' on the dendrochronology correlation to find the comparable dendrochronology calendar age. The dendrochronology correlation is shown as two lines in Fig 2

The Shaw date (red bar in Fig 1A) is ~2660 BCE based on historical documentation.

Converting the raw 14C 'age' of 4125 BP to dendrochronologial calendar age gives a date range of ~2700 BCE (minus 1&sigma line intersept) to ~2620 BCE (plus 1&sigma line intersept) for an average dendro age of ~2660+/-40 BCE. Note that +/-40 years in over 4,000 years is an error of +/-1%. The error is partly due to the two stage process of using 14C data to convert to dendrochronological calendar age.

Note that this conversion does not depend on the calculation of 14C 'age' -- that is a purely mathematical conversion of the measured amounts of 14C and 12C in the samples, and then comparing those 14C/12C values to ones found in the tree rings to find the best match to the tree rings, but it does introduce an error due to the band of rings that match those levels.

So we have another historical calibration date of 2660 BCE with 99% consilience between history and tree ring chronologies.

You are introducing new arguments here before we have completed or summarized our current discussions. I prefer Rohl's revised chronology which reveals large discrepancies in the mainstream Egyptian chronology. If you correct all the mainstream chronologies in favor of more logical chronologies in each case, we get a more logical consilience in accordance with the much stronger magnetic field in early history. ie the 10% adjustment to carbon dates is illogical compared to the 50% change in magnetic field strength in mainstream chronology. If we calibrate the timeframes according to the corrected history, we compress the timeframes, and then the carbon ratios align better with the magnetic field changes.

Another grasping at straws, and you are running out of room ... at 4125 BP for our earliest to date match between dendrochronology and history we are half way through the Bristlecone and Irish dendrochronology calendars ... with only ~1% error.

Do you realize that Monsoon is a season rather than a single storm event?

4125Bp is your date. Rohl's chronology compresses recent history after he showed evidence that two Egyptian king lists were concurrent rather than consecutive. Regarding dendrochronology you need to align recent White Mountain BCP trees with recent European chronology to make your point.

Yes you have the monsoon season, but trees in monsoon areas often have multiple rings. http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/...dicals/earthmatters/13/EMv13n1.pdf

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 12:18 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 12:39 AM mindspawn has replied

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 79 of 119 (712273)
12-01-2013 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 71 by RAZD
11-28-2013 7:47 PM

Re: Dendrochronology Basics
This is my third reply -- see Message 52
2,040-year-old tree's rings read like global history

WOW! I have asked you repeatedly to show me proof of recent cross-checking with WHITE MOUNTAIN Bristlecone Pine trees and you answer with a link about Colorado Bristlecone Pine Trees. Unfortunately this failure of yours so far is ruining your argument. You may not understand why but your failure to focus on the White Mountain 1816 drought tree rings ruins your objection to multiple annual rings on the White Mountain BCP trees, and ruins your argument that other trees do not have multiple rings when they undergo dryer weather conditions like the White Mountains.

OF course the Colorado trees would cross-check with European trees that have wetter weather, I agree on the annual nature of the Colorado tree rings as per your link:

Despite many many posts, and numerous copy and pastes I feel this argument is making no progress due to you failing to actually discuss my objections. You are flooding the thread with a lot of irrelevant links and posts.

and again it is a matter of diminishing returns instead of an on/off situation ... the water available becomes more difficult to extract so the availability is on an exponential curve, and, like radioactive decay, it would have a 'half-life' -- thus the supply would diminish but never stop. Until it freezes ... at the end of the 6 to 12 week growing season ...

More statements without evidence. I asked for your evidence that dolomite will retain moisture throughout summer and this is your reply? Not convincing at all. Wood does not grow when the water supply runs out, the onus is on you to show me that the tree or the soil retains enough moisture to grow when there is absolutely no water supply.

It's 6 to 12 weeks, just search my previous posts.

Your rainfall charts do not apply -- look instead at the one I provided. Note average precipitation is ~0.5" ...

Average precipitation per month? per rainfall? Which chart are you referring to you, i thought you said 12 inches per year? If the average is 0.5 per month this would mean 6 inches per year. A daily rainfall chart, even with your figures, would show the summer rainfalls are intermittent. the less rain, the more dependent the tree is on each rainfall, and the stronger my argument becomes. So your above point supports my argument that rain is rare, the soil is dry, and the trees stop growing between rainfalls. I am still waiting for your evidence that trees can continue to grow through dry spells by retaining moisture , or that with the tiny rainfalls you are claiming the dolomite can retain moisture for weeks at a time on some of the driest slopes on earth.

Glad you think that -- some progress maybe.

The problem you have is this:

the Bristlecone pine chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the Irish oak chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the German oak chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the Bristlecone pine matches the oak chronologies wiggle pattern with a shift of 37 years ... older.
Rather than too many rings it has too few.

I'm referring to the White Mountain Bristlecone Pines, the alleged oldest trees on earth. These trees are unique compared to say Colorado Bristlecone Pines that have more moisture. Which known date is tied into the White Mountain Bristlecone Pines? Please provide evidence or stop claiming that these trees are so old. (you really need to support your claims, dolomite soil is your only argument so far, your weather claims support my position). Your short summer growing season argument ruined your spring melt growing season argument, and so your own dissonance is starting to agree with my position. (a growing season of tiny intermittent summer rainfalls has been my claim all along, you seem to now agree with me and seem to have abandoned your once off spring melt argument)Glad you think that -- some progress maybe.

The problem you have is this:

the Bristlecone pine chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the Irish oak chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the German oak chronology is an absolute chronology, tied to a known date,
the Bristlecone pine matches the oak chronologies wiggle pattern with a shift of 37 years ... older.
Rather than too many rings it has too few.

Ancient cross-matching supports my position IF you are unable to prove recent cross-matching.

Regarding your proof of storage of water, as you quoted:
"Whole tree transpiration can be maintained with stored water for about a week, but it can be maintained with stored water from the upper crown alone for no more than a few hours."
Just one week of storage... this supports my argument.

Different trees have different degrees of this ability, those that have lived in minimal water ecologies generally have better developed storage than those that live in lush conditions. Bristlecone pines have lived in this high altitude dry environment for several millenia and have adapted to it.

You need proof of this storage. Maybe they have adapted by using up the moisture more rapidly and then going dormant. You need to present your evidence how BCP trees store water more than other trees, maybe they survive because they do not store, but more easily survive dormancy between growth.

The problem for you though, is not the strength of your belief (human pride?), but in the fact that you are exhibiting classic cognitive dissonance resolution patterns. This has nothing to do with scientists pursuing information and everything with personal dissonance resolution ... blaming the messengers is classic dissonance resolution behavior, and it allows you to feel 'safe' in your belief rather than have to confront the information provided.

I'm seeing this cognitive dissonance in your posts, in the manner in which you avoid answering my questions directly and succintly and flood this thread with a lot of irrelevant information and are starting to contradict yourself. (spring growth or short summer growth - please make up your mind)

Can you really tell me that one living tree that is over 5,000 years old, and one dead but standing tree that is over 7,000 years old do not have thousands of overlapped years within an 8,000 year chronology? That these two trees alone count for most of the chronology to 7,600 BP when the error compared to the oak chronologies was found to be only 0.48%? Really?

Once again I asked you for evidence. I'm getting nothing except a fictional diagram. I wish dendrochronology was so accurate, but frankly it is not. Rohl an Egyptologist points out on page 489 of his book "A test of time" that the SAME tree can cross match 3 times with another sequence with a match within the range of acceptability to dendrochronologists. (incorrect matching sequences can have a higher match value than accepted matched sequences - t-values of 4 or 5)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by RAZD, posted 11-28-2013 7:47 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 1:16 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 82 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 8:55 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 83 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 7:26 PM mindspawn has replied

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 85 of 119 (712346)
12-03-2013 7:29 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by RAZD
11-25-2013 8:40 AM

Re: Lake Suigetsu varves
Believing this does not make it so. It doesn't matter how many die-offs you imagine, because you don't have the time to form a clay layer between them. There could be two, there could be twenty and you would still have one diatom layer because there would be no separation.

Stating this does not make it so. The varves in question are very tiny, hardly detectable layers of a few mm each. You need more evidence before you state that the varves are too thick to form quickly.

Please provide rainfall records, both current and historical so you can compare them to actual core sediment layers.

Please provide information on when these spring tides occurred so you can compare them to actual core sediment layers.

Integration of Old and New Lake Suigetsu 14C Data Sets
RADIOCARBON, Vol 55, Nr 4, 2013, p 2049–2058

You already acknowledged that there are 25 regular spring tides a year so I don't need to prove this. Owing to Lake Suigetsu's unique location next to the sea, it is inevitable that the salt water table would rise during spring tides, I have already posted evidence that is what occurs at all coastal regions. Freshwater diatoms die when exposed to salt water, this is a fact.

The applicable spring tides would be those that overlap the diatom bloom, which normally occur in spring/summer, so the very nature of all the evidence put forward, is that there is regular silting interrupted by regular spring tide die-offs during the diatom bloom. All the evidence has already been put forward, if you doubt any of these facts I will present the evidence again that diatoms bloom seasonally (not the whole year) , that spring tides affect the water table with salt water, that salt water kills freshwater diatoms, that Lake Suigetsu is located in the type of close proximity to the sea which is always affected by the sea's salt water table. You have presented the evidence that the silting is regular and not intermittent, that fact also contributes towards my argument that diatom die-offs would interrupt the regular silting of the lake whenever the bloom experiences a spring tide. This would result in layered density of diatom remains in the silt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by RAZD, posted 11-25-2013 8:40 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2013 12:56 PM mindspawn has not replied

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 86 of 119 (712354)
12-03-2013 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by RAZD
12-02-2013 12:39 AM

Re: Mysterious Magical Weather Stress Rings
Your argument is rather hard to follow when you make ad hoc assertions as you go, grabbing at straws and going down rabbit holes.

I'm doing no such thing. I am asking you to prove that White Mountain Bristlecone pines are really as old as you claim and I have no hidden agendas:

a) You can do so by showing me that their chronology recently co-incides with actual historical events (1816). You have not done so.
b) You can do so by proving to me that they continually grow throughout the growing season through retaining moisture, or through the soil retaining moisture. Your answers have been grasping at straws with no definite facts.

Without that evidence (1816) shown in well studied trees, we have the likelihood that certain weather patterns can create multiple rings. This likelihood can apply to other regions as well during differing ancient weather patterns.

This is not an ad hoc argument, but has been my argument all along. I wonder why you have not yet presented your evidence of 1816 in White Mountain trees yet, your failure to do so speaks volumes. You keep saying you have presented your evidence, yet your evidence shows a loose consilience thousands of years ago with no recent consilience at all. Your evidence shows a recent consilience with Colorado trees, which is irrelevant to white Mountain trees.

But not one without sufficient water to grow, slowly, during each 6 to 12 week growing period, mostly on snow melt.

Make up your mind, is it a 6 to 8 week summer growing season ... or a spring melt growing season?

Results of these measurements are shown in Figure 7. Photosynthesis was severely depressed at a soil moisture level between 8 and 6%. Since respiration continued without such severe depression, production of photosynthate was curtailed more severely than its consumption. By referring back to Figure 4 it can be seen that at the field site where soil moisture was measured, moisture levels on dolon1ite were below the wilting coefficient on only two dates, ... It seems then that small site differences in soil moisture could cause large differences in productivity in bristlecone pine, and that such small moisture differences do exist between dolomite and sandstone soils in the field.

Once again your evidence supports my position. The evidence presented shows that Bristlecone Pine trees require dolomite soil in those dry conditions because it preserves moisture, but even the dolomite soil was "below the wilting coefficient on only two dates". ie in late summer of 1962 over just 5 weeks, in the growing season, even the dolomite soil had insufficient water to support growth on two separate occasions.
Wilting coefficient is "the level of soil moisture at which water becomes unavailable to plants and permanent wilting ensue"

Point made! Thanks for the info.

You have not shown that the ecology is so limited that the trees cannot grow for the full season, but I have shown you that it is NOT so limited.

You have shown me that the trees do not have enough moisture to grow continuously.

Note the only month without snow is August, and the highest rainfall is in July.

When I combine the data in Fig 4 (shows moisture versus time) and Fig 7 (shows respiration and photosynthesis versus moisture), taking the values for moisture at the different time points in fig 4 and plotting those on fig 7 to obtain what the respiration and photosynthesis would be for those times, to match the respiration and photosynthesis to the moisture levels for those 6 measurements made at weekly intervals I get:

Figure 4 shows that moisture went below 6.4% on two occasions, EVEN IN THE DOLOMITE SOIL.
You article states "Photosynthesis was SEVERELY DEPRESSED at a soil moisture level between 8 and 6%"
This means that merely in the late summer, these Bristlecone pines although they continued to RESPIRATE (breathe) went through 2 periods of SEVERE DEPRESSION in photosynthesis in the dolomite soil.

What your graph does not show is that the dips represent depressed photosynthesis on two occasions in only 5 weeks of 1962 that are so depressed as to be below the level at which moisture is available to plants, and permanent wilting ensues.

We also know that the "Prometheus" tree (aka WPN-114) was living when cut down, with a measured age of 4862 when cut down in 1964 for research, however this is a minimum age due to the core of the tree is missing, giving it a minimum germination date of 2898 BCE (but likely older). (wiki)

And we know there are a lot of other trees, many hundreds of years old, some several thousand years old, in various places.

RAZD you first have to provide evidence that those are annual rings to make claims about the age of these trees. All your evidence is starting to sound increasingly hollow, your evidence is actually supporting my view. Once you have put forward a strong case for annual rings, then it would be mature to use the accepted dates for these trees, until then its premature to use these dates as any form of factual support for your position that they are actually that old.

Another false assertion. This has been falsified by information already provided to you:

LaMarche Jr, V.C. and Harlan, T.P., Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 78 nr 36, 1973, p 8849–8858, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/...9/JC078i036p08849/abstract
Message 73

Your link uses carbon dating to date those trees up to 3535 BC. (circular reasoning) I was kinda hoping you would show 1816 in the White Mountain tree rings. Message 73 does not focus on BCP Trees in the White Mountains and their recent chronology.

LaMarche and Harlan obtained samples in 1971 that were cross-matched with White Mountain Bristlecone Pines sampled in 1954 by Schulman. Most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period 1954–1971, a few formed only 17 rings, none formed more than 18 rings. This certainly indicates that the Bristlecone pines did not grow more than one ring per year.

Accuracy of tree ring dating of bristlecone pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale
VC LaMarche Jr, TP Harlan - Journal of Geophysical Research, 1973 - agu.org
... Plotted ring width measurements from samples obtained in 1971 can easily be matched with
Schulman's eries, the indication being that most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period ...
LAMARCHE AND HARLAN: TREE RING DATING ... of the bristlecone pine chronologies ...

I found this very interesting. Can you give me a link please?

No it doesn't explain why the matches are virtually EXACTLY the same for thousands of rings, with only 0.5% error after 7,600 years. Having mysterious magical rings appear in different chronologies at different times cannot make the rest of the chronologies match because you will have offset one to the other.

Its not so precise:

Problems with Dendrochronology
Excerpt from Online Essay
Sean Pitman


Papers by Keenan are attached as PDF files

Consider a 1986 paper written by D. K. Yamaguchi.1 In this paper Yamaguchi recognized that tree rings tend to "auto correlate" or actually cross-match with each other in several places within a tree-ring sequence. What he did to prove this was quite interesting. He took a 290-ring Douglas-fir log known, by historical methods, to date between AD 1482 and 1668 and demonstrated that it could cross-match in multiple places with the Pacific Northwest Douglas Fir Master Growth-ring Sequence to give very good t-values. A t-value is given to a wiggle-match on the basis of a statistical analysis of the correspondence between two wood samples. This statistical assessment is done by computer, which assigns high t-values (3 and above) to good wiggle-matches and low t-values (below 3) to those with poor correspondence between the ring patterns. Amazingly, using such t-value analysis, Yamaguchi found 113 different matches having a confidence level of greater than 99.9%. For example, 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.1 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.
It is therefore interesting to note that a number of the crucial dendrochronology sequences, such as the Garry Bog 2 (GB2) and Southwark sequences, which connect the Belfast absolute chronology (i.e. the AD sequence) to the 'floating' Belfast long chronology (i.e. the BC sequence), and ultimately used to re-date the South German chronology, have t-values of around 4. These t-values are considerably lower than those obtained for some of the historically incorrect dates produced by Yamaguchi's experiment. Thus, one would be justified in asking if the crucial cross-links, which connect up the floating sequences of the Belfast and German chronologies are based on incorrect wiggle-matches - having resulted from the phenomenon of auto-correlation

They identified the extra rings, and did not confuse them with annual rings as you keep asserting/thinking happens.

Your big problem is still the consilience of these dendrochronologies with each other and with historical events -- they match historical events precisely and accurately and they match each other ring for ring for over 8 thousand years with 99.5% accuracy and precision.

Nit picking each chronology, inventing extra rings here and there doesn't explain the matches.

The consilience is from the premature acceptance of carbon dates, which are out by the same factor as Th-Ur dating (the difference is about 10% due to carbon production changing during the strong magnetic field).

Floating tree ring chronologies are tied in with other chronologies using low T-values (4-6) instead of high T-values (1-3) based on approximate carbon dating of the floating tree sequence.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by RAZD, posted 12-02-2013 12:39 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2013 5:49 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 89 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2013 8:56 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 91 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2013 7:01 PM mindspawn has not replied

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

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

You might want to read through them all before answering as some of it is repetitive.

Now you have a lot on your plate, and I can wait for you to catch up, particularly if you take the time to compile your replies and group them according to topic,

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


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

B) Carbon dating the OLDEST bristlecone pines: the vast ages of the oldest of these white mountain trees are limited to a few very elevated White Mountain locations. I believe it is a contradiction that the oldest living Bristlecone Pine trees are in the harshest bristlecone pine locations of the White Mountains. As per your quote in Message 90, Libby [1963] detected a discrepancy between radiocarbon age and tree ring age only in the OLDEST of these white Mountain trees. Your whole argument and your evidence presented does not specifically focus on the oldest of these trees, and these are the ones which show radiocarbon discrepancies as per Libby [1963]
Quote from your Message 90:
"Intraannual rings. The basic premises underlying tree ring dating of bristlecone pine are that each growth ring represents wood formed during a single calendar year and that no more than one ring is formed in any year. Some authorities have questioned the annual character of the growth ring in this species. For example, in referring to White Mountain bristlecone pines, Mirov [1967] writes that 'Apparently a semblance annual rings is formed after every of rather infrequent cloudburst. ' Libby [1963] also suggested that the discrepancy between radiocarbon and tree ring ages of the oldest dendrochronologically dated bristlecone pine samples then available (about 3600 years old) might be explained by these trees having added more by than one ring per year. However, there are several lines of evidence showing that growth rings in bristlecone pines are true annual rings."

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

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

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

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

D) T-values of dendrochronology. http://www.detectingdesign.com/carbon14.html
" Yamaguchi demonstrated that his log could cross-match with other tree-ring sequences to give t-values of around 5 at AD 1504 (for the low end of the ring age), 7 at AD 1647 and 4.5 at AD 1763. Six of these matches were non-overlapping. That means that this particular piece of wood could be dated to be any one of those six vastly different ages to within a 99.9% degree of confidence. "

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I) Ice cores - not yet discussed.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

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

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

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But mostly I want to see you address the consiliences

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

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

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

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let's do a simple thought experiment ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

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

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

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

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

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

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

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

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


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

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

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

Make that harsh dry, cold conditions ...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

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

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

Two questions --

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

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

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

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 107 of 119 (713242)
12-11-2013 6:49 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by RAZD
12-10-2013 6:15 PM

Re: SUMMARY -- reply 3a: Lake Suigetsu pt 1
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

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.

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

No problem with this, it all suits my argument.

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?


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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 6:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 3:57 PM mindspawn has not replied

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 108 of 119 (713251)
12-11-2013 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by RAZD
12-10-2013 9:03 PM

Consilience - again..
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?

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

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.

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?

I don't follow your point here, kindly explain further.

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?

Yes the carbon dates after about 1800 bp would have to be recalibrated. The recent historical dates are recorded in Japanese literature and need no adjustment whatsoever.

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:

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 (

Haha the floating German pine chronology? Matched through carbon dating?? And you want to use it to corroborate carbon dating... hehe

Recognise the circular reasoning????? Oh well.....rather just keep to the so-called absolute oak dendrochronology from now.

Every spot on earth receives seasonal weather patterns. Its damning to carbon dating that only a few locations corroborate carbon dating. Even if you had 20 this would be damning. If you had about 10 000 locations this would make a convincing case. I don't find your consilience argument strong at all, in fact the dearth of corroborating locations and the need to find a strange set of circumstances before there is consilience is in fact embarrassing.

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.

As for tree ring chronologies, the older "floating chronologies" are anchored to "known dates". How else would they date a floating chronology?? These known dates are nearly always related to carbon or Th-Ur dating. (frost rings of known volcanic eruptions). When the older chronologies are joined to earlier chronologies it is with unreliable techniques using low probability matching sequences. Even these low probability sequences show up as 99.5% matching according to their techniques which show that the percentages themselves are unreliable.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by RAZD, posted 12-10-2013 9:03 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 5:50 PM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 119 by RAZD, posted 12-21-2013 6:41 PM mindspawn has not replied

Member (Idle past 1973 days)
Posts: 1015
Joined: 10-22-2012

Message 110 of 119 (713333)
12-12-2013 7:28 AM
Reply to: Message 109 by RAZD
12-11-2013 5:51 PM

Re: SUMMARY -- regrouping
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).

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:

Bristlecone pine -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
the 'old' chronology (Methuselah, White Mountains), anchored by living trees to 1953 CE and extending 8,653 years to 6,700 BCE,
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),
no extra ring growth has been recorded in either chronology, even when climate was favorable for a stress ring
frost rings were recorded in both chronologies
one missing ring was found in some tree samples during the first 18 years of the Campito chronology
it is very probable that low sample size could result in failing to identify a missing ring in all of the samples
the overlap period is 5,397 years long from 1962 CE to 3,435 BCE with only two errors,
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
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,
there is a 100% match of rings from 1962 CE to 2140 BCE,
there is a 100% match of rings from 2142 BCE to 2679 BCE with the Campito rings shifted 1 year older at 2141 BCE,
there is a 100% match of rings from 2681 BCE to 3435 BCE with the Campito rings shifted another year older at 2680 BCE,
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,
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.
the probability of matching of 5395 randomly assembled bands correctly in a 5397 year period is "vanishingly small" ...

European oak -- anchored annual tree ring count chronologies:
the Irish oak chronology, anchored by living trees at 1971 CE and extending 9,951 years to 7980 BCE
the German oak chronology, anchored to living trees at 2002 CE and extending 10,482 years to 8,480 BCE
combining these two chronologies together results in a consolidated chronology extending 10,482 years from 2002 CE to 8,480 BCE
the documented error between these two chronologies when compared statistically is

I am repeating my main points because you just have not faced them, instead you produce long repetitive posts:

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. 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.

2) Consilience
You seem proud of the consilience. I would be ashamed of the lack of consilience, that only strange and unique locations have consilience. (Lake Siguetsu, Cariaco Basin). The consilience with tree ring sequences is based on anchoring to so-called known dates and doubtful matching techniques..

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.

4) Radiocarbon dating/ radiometric dating:
Its only logical that if slight increases in solar penetration cause slight drops in decay, then a large decrease in solar penetration would result in a large increase in decay rates. The ~10% adjusted calibration for carbon dates is only for atmospheric production of carbon during strong magnetic fields, you also need to take into account increased decay rates and the exponential effect this has on the half-life during periods of strong magnetic fields. This concept applies to both carbon dating and Th-Ur dating. You need to face this fact:

Slight increase = slight drop in decay rates
Major decrease = major INCREASE in decay rates
a 50% increase in the magnetic field strength prior to 200AD will produce a major decrease in the penetration of the solar wind AND cosmic rays.

Carbon dates and Th-UR dates are incorrect by the same proportions prior to 200AD due to the strong magnetic field prior to 200AD and therefore higher decay rates (based on the solar penetration/decay rate relationship).

These dates are used to anchor the older tree ring chronologies. Any tree rings of approximately correct carbon dates can be used to fill in the gaps between anchored dates due to bad cross-matching techniques as showed in this thread. Result: consilience through unreliable dates.

Only unique locations are used for annual sediment layer consilience, other locations are possibly not used because of the lack of confidence in the annual nature of the layers due to carbon discrepancies. The ash layers at these locations would obviously be consilient with frost rings and th-ur dating and carbon dating, because these are all dated based on current decay rates. End result: circular reasoning: thousands of locations on earth have annual deposition and yet only a few locations have consilience, each of the consilient locations having doubtful annual layers.

Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 109 by RAZD, posted 12-11-2013 5:51 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by RAZD, posted 12-12-2013 10:11 AM mindspawn has not replied
 Message 112 by RAZD, posted 12-15-2013 11:55 AM mindspawn has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022