It appears this copyright mess may just be a squabble between the academic community over there and someone who they consider to be a PITA climate change conspiracy buff. He has apparently regularly accused the academic community of fraud climate wise. It should be noted that it doesn't sound like he's accusing Baillie of any scientific wrong doing, it appears he wants Baillie's data to attempt to prove fraud among others.
Keenen's story from his website where he points out that the Irish Oaks data has not been open sourced with the International Tree Ring Data Bank (ITRDB) . He insinuates this publishing protocol is some form of standard, something I have no knowledgeable opinion on. I would assume however that this data bank exists for some good reason - and that reason would be a international repository of such data.
He apparently had a similar situation with Gothenburg University, in Sweden. Responding to threats of legal action, they eventually uploaded their "substantial" ring data to the ITRDB in response to his request.
It's making more sense now - sounds like Keenan pisses everyone off and so they circle the wagons to make things hard for him. Not defending such or criticizing such, just trying to read what is the situation with zero firsthand knowledge.
****************
An interesting archive of selected posts on the Baillie copyright issue from the International Tree Ring Data Bank Forum:
It's interesting in the posts to see an apparent cultural difference as it relates to the freedom of access to research data. Generally, those from the US appear to be FAR more open (insistent even) to the open sharing of data while the those from across the Atlantic want to hold things closer to the vest.
****************
Here is a great article from the Tree Ring Society:
Pearce Paul Creasman Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
For this topic, I was particularly interested in the section titled "Access". Certainly it appears that the University of Arizona (which I believe is the granddaddy of this science) has a very health attitude towards the value of open and shared data. I would expect nothing less of good science.
Until I can learn more about the Irish Oaks data situation, I think I'll focus on the UOA program as an example of transparency with the kids. Any hint of secrecy just plays into their fears.
... Certainly it appears that the University of Arizona (which I believe is the granddaddy of this science) has a very health attitude towards the value of open and shared data. ...
They also are the home of the Radiocarbon Journal and make all back issues open to public access
We will get into 14C later when we start looking into other evidence that confirms the tree rings are old, but in a simple way that doesn't involve accepting radioactive decay rates being constant.
They also are the home of the Radiocarbon Journal and make all back issues open to public access.
Cool, thanks for that tip.
We will get into 14C later when we start looking into other evidence that confirms the tree rings are old, but in a simple way that doesn't involve accepting radioactive decay rates being constant.
ThinAirDesigns, you have an interesting story. I was raised in a conservative evangelical home in the Midwest, but my parents were well-educated and not at all afraid of science or scholarship. I work in Silicon Valley and am still a conservative evangelical.
I can give lots of recommendations for you. Here are a few: 1) from a geological perspective: solidrocklectures.org. These guys are evangelical Christian geologists, and do a very good job of explaining geology to Christians at a very simple, understandable level. 2) from a historical perspective: "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers. Ron is a historian of science who was raised SDA. 3) from a biblical perspective: "Seven Days that Divide the World" by John Lennox. 4) if you want to get into radiocarbon, realize that nearly all YEC speakers and writers on the topic give terrible disinformation. They say that radiocarbon dates depend on the ASSUMPTION of a constant decay rate and an ASSUMPTION of the original amount of radiocarbon in the sample. While this was true in Libby's day, it has NOT been true since dendrochronological calibrations became standard, roughly 20 years ago. For calibrated dates, the only "assumptions" are that trees grow one ring per year (which can be validated), and that we can count tree rings. If there were any change in the decay rate or in the initial concentration of radiocarbon, it would affect the tree rings and the unknown sample equally, and would completely cancel out. (I'm putting together a talk on radiocarbon for a Christian group next month, where I will stress this.)
Contact me privately if you want to discuss more ideas. I'm also curious whether or not you and I have crossed paths in Silicon Valley.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein
I am very astonished that the scientific picture of the real world around me is very deficient. It gives us a lot of factual information, puts all of our experience in a magnificently consistent order, but it is ghastly silent about all and sundry that is really near to our heart, that really matters to us. It cannot tell us a word about red and blue, bitter and sweet, physical pain and physical delight; it knows nothing of beautiful and ugly, good or bad, God and eternity. Science sometimes pretends to answer questions in these domains, but the answers are very often so silly that we are not inclined to take them seriously. — Erwin Schroedinger
... For calibrated dates, the only "assumptions" are that trees grow one ring per year (which can be validated), and that we can count tree rings. If there were any change in the decay rate or in the initial concentration of radiocarbon, it would affect the tree rings and the unknown sample equally, and would completely cancel out. ...
Indeed. What you can compare are the actual ratio of 14C/12C in the tree rings to the actual ratio of 14C/12C in the samples -- these measurements are actually the raw data that 14C ages are calculated from, but without the calculations they are still objective empirical data.
If the rate of decay has varied in the past then - as you say - the ratio of 14C/12C in the sample and the appropriate tree ring will decay by the same amounts regardless of what that variation or rate actually is.
... (I'm putting together a talk on radiocarbon for a Christian group next month, where I will stress this.)
Here is some additional info you can use that I have gathered for my rewrite:
... (I'm putting together a talk on radiocarbon for a Christian group next month, where I will stress this.)
Would you mind providing me with refs and transcript and a way to reference that in my rewrite?
I have been giving some thought to this, so I thought I would lay out a rough outline here, see what you think, and get some input from others (like Coyote and kbertsche).
Field trip to cut down trees and count rings (see Message 31 above) - be "tots cool" to have Dr Henri G-M along ... or part of the trip
Are the tree rings anchored in time by their known cut-down date? Can this be used to determine the date the tree sprouted?
Compare tree rings at different heights - what is the same what is different?
Accuracy in comparing different length sections of tik marks -- how long an overlap do you need to have confidence in the accuracy and precision of the match?
Can you match one tree to another with the tik patterns?
How does this affect the accuracy and precision of the data?
Are they detectable annual layers of growth?
What does the oldest living tree in a forest tell you about the forest?
What information can dead trees provide? Are those rings floating in time because we don't know when it died?
Can you match rings from the dead tree to a living tree with the tik patterns? Does this anchor the dead tree rings with the same accuracy and precision as the living tree? How does this affect our confidence in the data?
Information on missing rings and false rings, how does this affect accuracy? precision? the confidence we have in the data?
Making a dendrochronology from multiple samples using the tik mark patterns
What is the accuracy, precision and confidence for this chronology?
How could you improve it? Replication of data and cross-checking methodology
Information on known dendrochronologies
The "Methuselah" Bristlecone pine chronology
The Irish oak chronology,
The German oak chronology,
The Campito Bristlecone pine chronology
The German pine chronology
Are these anchored chronologies or floating chronologies?
What do they tell us about the age of the earth?
What do they tell us about a world wide flood in that time?
How accurate are they, how can we test them
Does adding new data to old chronologies correctly count the intervening time?
Comparing Methuselah and Campito chronologies
Comparing the oak chronologies
Can we compare the oak chronologies to the Bristlecone pine chronologies with tree rings? Why not?
Comparing the chronologies to historical events
What can measurements of raw 14C levels in the wood tell us -- is matching raw 14C levels like matching tree rings?
Can we compare the oak chronologies to the Bristlecone pine chronologies with raw 14C levels?
What do the comparisons tell us about accuracy? about precision? about the confidence we have in the results?
Basics of 14C
How does it form in the atmosphere
Why causes it to vary from year to year (why hasn't it reached equilibrium?)
What does decay mean for age - do we need to know the decay rate?
Does the decay rate have to be constant to provide useful information?
What do regular periodic cycles of peaks and valleys in production of 14C in the atmosphere show (the "heartbeat" of the sun - compare to EEG)?
Do steady periodic multi-year patterns show consistency in the tree ring data? Can the "heartbeats" be used as a secondary check on the tree ring data?
Are there other sources of 14C?
What does this tell us about 14C accuracy? precision? the confidence we have in the data?
Lake Suigetsu varves
What are they?
How are they similar to tree rings? How are they different?
How do we know they are annual layers?
What are the differences and similarities between the 1st core set and the 2nd core set?
How does the missing anchoring information affect the precision and accuracy of the data?
What do volcanic layers tell us?
What confidence to we have in the data?
Even as a floating chronology, what do they tell you about the age of the earth?
Wiggle matching 14C values
Review 4(g) above using raw values to compare dendrochronologies
The mathematical wiggle matching process to find a "best fit"
The similarity to matching rings when building a dendrochronology
The added constraint on wiggle matching due to 14C decay - the time window
Wiggle matching the German Pine floating chronology to the German Oak anchored chronology to "tether" the floating chronology to the anchored chronology
Wiggle matching the Lake Suigetsu varve chronology to the combined German oak and pine chronology
How does the tethering process affect the accuracy and precision of the combined chronology?
How much confidence can we have in the age of these layers?
Cave Paintings
How are they dated?
What animals are depicted?
What does this tell us about the animals and environment at the time the paintings were made?
What does this tell you about a world wide flood after they were drawn?
And I was thinking about a section on Creationist estimates of the age of the earth
How many different estimates are there?
How do they compare?
How accurate are they?
How precise are they?
How much confidence can we have in them?
Would you put that at the start (after definitions)?
When we get to C14 dating, I'll be able to contribute a bit. I have done somewhere over 650 C14 dates in a long career as an archaeologist, and have had to study the topic to figure out what I'm getting.
Thanks Coyote. I'm sure I'll have plenty of questions and I'm grateful to have resources to answer them.
When we get to C14 dating, I'll be able to contribute a bit. I have done somewhere over 650 C14 dates in a long career as an archaeologist, and have had to study the topic to figure out what I'm getting.
Thanks Coyote. I'm sure I'll have plenty of questions and I'm grateful to have resources to answer them.
JB
My main areas are sample selection and interpreting the results.
Others can help you in other areas of C14 dating, just as RAZD has already provided some great information on calibration.
Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1
"Multiculturalism" demands that the US be tolerant of everything except its own past, culture, traditions, and identity.
I can give lots of recommendations for you. Here are a few: 1) from a geological perspective: solidrocklectures.org. These guys are evangelical Christian geologists, and do a very good job of explaining geology to Christians at a very simple, understandable level. 2) from a historical perspective: "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers. Ron is a historian of science who was raised SDA. 3) from a biblical perspective: "Seven Days that Divide the World" by John Lennox. 4) if you want to get into radiocarbon, realize that nearly all YEC speakers and writers on the topic give terrible disinformation. They say that radiocarbon dates depend on the ASSUMPTION of a constant decay rate and an ASSUMPTION of the original amount of radiocarbon in the sample. While this was true in Libby's day, it has NOT been true since dendrochronological calibrations became standard, roughly 20 years ago. For calibrated dates, the only "assumptions" are that trees grow one ring per year (which can be validated), and that we can count tree rings. If there were any change in the decay rate or in the initial concentration of radiocarbon, it would affect the tree rings and the unknown sample equally, and would completely cancel out. (I'm putting together a talk on radiocarbon for a Christian group next month, where I will stress this.)
Thanks, I'm so excited that I have so many experts here to help me with this. Also excited to have resources that are Christian and understand what people go through who are attempting to reconcile their faith with the evidence.
I'll check out your suggestions 1 and 3. I finished the Ronald Numbers book just yesterday but of course I was familiar with many of the names and content in that book because of my SDA history.
When it comes to #4, I only started studying radiocarbon dating a few weeks ago but it didn't take me long to figure out that many statements made about it were hogwash. I do have one question from your response.
For calibrated dates, the only "assumptions" are that trees grow one ring per year (which can be validated), and that we can count tree rings.
To me, that makes it sound like science insists that trees always and only grow one ring per year - but we know that's not true (and I'm pretty darn certain that isn't how you meant it). Might it be better to say that we have ways to differentiate the times that trees occasionally *do* stray from the one ring per year norm, and that we have several ways to double check any such instance? If I'm wrong, school me by all means.
And I'll send you a PM. I did do some work at SLAC in the early '90s, but it was in an ancillary building and I'd be surprised if we crossed paths. My most recent was 14 years at a company called Sportvision - the yellow 1st and 10 line on the football field company. If you've watched sports at all, you've seen our work.
Hey RAZD, I had a thought regarding finding areas with known logging dates.
Extremely near me (all around me in fact) are rather vast tornado torn areas with much downfall. This occurred on 4/27/11. I can easily get whatever wood (live and dead) I want from these areas.
Would this be a good starting point for the experiments you are suggesting?
When it comes to #4, I only started studying radiocarbon dating a few weeks ago but it didn't take me long to figure out that many statements made about it were hogwash. I do have one question from your response.
An excellent resource on all forms of radiometric dating systems is:
Extremely near me (all around me in fact) are rather vast tornado torn areas with much downfall. This occurred on 4/27/11. I can easily get whatever wood (live and dead) I want from these areas.
Would this be a good starting point for the experiments you are suggesting?
How good are you at identifying tree species?
I ask because if you want to compare trees it is better with the same species.
But yes, a good place to start.
The kids may be interested in making stools with sections, and that is a good excuse to polish the surfaces for easy counting and for souvenirs to remember the exercise.
What are the parameters you know?
when the trees died (in effect they were all "cut" on the day of the tornado).
they grew under the same basic ecological conditions
they grew under the same basic climate conditions.
What things can you test for?
the number of rings for different trees
the ring width with age pattern (the tik mark strips)
at different heights of the trees
between different trees of the same species
between different trees of different species
the correlation between number of rings and truck circumference and diameter
how many rings different is one tree at different heights (near ground, +10ft, +20ft)
do multiple or false rings form in some trees
do missing rings occur in some trees
What things can you NOT test for?
that the rings measure age.
If you could cut down some still living trees nearby you could compare the tik strip patterns and see if they properly record the time since the tornado (4 years should be 4 rings, but the outer ring could be problematic if partially formed -- they are usually discarded because the thickness is not dependable data).
Assuming they show annual data over the 4 years
can you extrapolate the germination dates of the downed trees?
how can you measure the accuracy and precision for the ages from the extrapolations
how much confidence can you have in the data
Are there other older such events?
Are any of the trees of known age? (street or house trees planted at a known time)
While I've been reading all the excellent links suggested to me another thought hit me. I'm looking for as many different little things as I can to spark consideration and thoughts in my target audience. We all react to different ideas differently so by dropping a variety of seeds perhaps something will root. Bear with me as I give my thought process on this one and it will take a couple steps to put it together.
(I'm not claiming the following is original thought — I'm sure it's been done plenty)
First assumption accepted by my audience: The universe is very, very big with stars very, very far away.
As we know, fundamentalists (of any sort) will refer to science when it suits them and reject it when it doesn't - it's a human tendency take to extremes. One small area of science that the kids accept is the size of the universe. I don't mean they can quote dimensions, but when an astronomer says there are stars millions of light years away, they didn't hear their parents say the usual That's nonsense — those atheistic scientists are making stuff up again, they heard them say Of course it's that big, God made it. Therefore they are programmed to simply accept it.
Second assumption accepted by my audience: God is not a deceiver. They are taught that God will not lie.
Using those two assumptions combined, my idea here is to attempt to get them thinking using some very simple math and astronomy. If there are stars more than 6,000 light years away, then without some sort of divine intervention, the light from those stars would not have reached us yet in a YE scenario.
Now I don't expect the above alone would do much convincing after all, I suspect that if you asked them what a tree in the garden of eden would have looked like if you had cut it down the week after creation, they would say it would have come complete with rings. In other words, god created Adam as an adult and the tree as an adult tree and the stars with the shaft of light already connected to the earth — all in 6 days a few thousand years ago.
But here is another angle: Though I never studied astronomy, I am told that through telescopes we can/have observed at least the death of stars if not the birth of stars and even have photographs us such. This means we are not seeing just 'innocent' shafts of light from distant starts, but EVENTS.
In the YE scenario, for us to witness the death of a star shown to be say a million light years away, the event would have had to have been inserted' into the far end of a relatively short shaft of light 6,000 light years out. It also means that the star never even existed. Clearly this requires a god who is inserting manufactured events in the light stream that never happens and thus is deceiving us. If you approach it rationally, you end up with either a very small universe where everything is closer than the widely accepted (by both science and religion) evidence shows, or you end up with a deceptive god.
At any rate, it's just a thought at this point. I would need to learn a lot more about astronomy before I would be willing to use it. I need to be able to have some excellent examples available and be able to answer basic questions. But I do think that it has potential to get them thinking on another level.
™ Version 4.2
(1)