|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 58 (9206 total) |
| |
Fyre1212 | |
Total: 919,412 Year: 6,669/9,624 Month: 9/238 Week: 9/22 Day: 0/9 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
You say that I have provided ZERO evidence , and yet I have shown a link and discussed the method in which they have recently determined the half lives of thorium230 and uranium234: And yet it is not any evidence of your claims. Evidence for your claims involves some demonstration of your mysterious magical 11-12 events for example, rather than just claims.
Here you make my whole point for me, the decay constant for Th230 and Ur 234 is based on the decay constant for U238. This ruins your case that Thorium dating is an independent measurement. You say "see above for reference to its derivation" and yet none of the above quotes even came close to having any reference to the derivation of the decay constant for U238 on which thorium/uranium decay relies. AND compared them to previous determinations that were done in the lab -- as I documented. The new values have smaller errors but otherwise replicate the previous ones, and the consilience from using a different methodology to determine their values once again provides high confidence in their accuracy and precision. Again, if you want to see the lab obtained independent values I suggest you do some reading. Starting here: Half-life of 230Th. It is on-line and tells how the half-life was measured independently in the lab. I'll get to Uranium-Thorium dating again in greater detail later. In the meantime I await your response to Message 41 and Message 42 Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : ..by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
Most of this post just rehashes refuted arguments and fails to deal honestly with the data. Correlations and consilience are NOT explained by making stuff up The consilience is due to scientists cherry picking locations according to a loose match with current carbon dating assumptions. The result is that they choose locations with approximately 10-12 major precipitation events a year, due to the fact that the carbon dates are incorrect by a factor of about 10-12 times.
What is your evidence for this? Saying it does not make it so: you need objective empirical evidence. You have presented ZERO evidence that factually and accurately shows this to be the case. Without evidence that demonstrates your conjecture it is just fantasy. I note that you are now claiming that the dates are due to some vast conspiracy among all the scientists involved with 14C calibration ... ... one of the mechanisms for reducing dissonance predicted by cognitive dissonance theory. Just for the record, I don't believe in any vast conspiracy. We will be dealing with the consilience continually in our other discussions , I just felt it necessary to state my position on the alleged conspiracy for the record. I believe the "cherry picking" isn't true cherry picking because its unintentional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
To complicate matters further, certain tree species may produce a double or false ring; when the earlywood cells (i.e., those in the ring that are larger, thin walled, and therefore lighter) are being produced during a growing season, and particularly stressful climatic conditions return and lead to a general decrease in the rate of tree growth, a band of latewood cells (i.e., those that are smaller, thicker walled, and therefore darker) will be produced. If and when favorable conditions return during that growing season, earlywood cell production will begin anew, and the normal band of latewood cells will be created at the end of the growing season (Jacoby, 2000a). The key to distinguishing between double or false rings and annual rings lies in the nature of the transition between the latewood and earlywood cells: in a false or double ring the transition is gradual due to the phasing in and out of favorable growing conditions (Fig. 3). In an annual tree ring, the transition from one ring’s latewood to the next ring’s earlywood is abrupt because ring production actually stopped for some period of time, typically during winter. Thanks for the educational post. It didn't cover our points of dispute though and so I quoted only the relevant sections. I feel you still have not faced the fact that the Bristlecone Pines are in a unique situation, lacking any gradual transitions between favorable and unfavorable conditions. The conditions are always unfavorable, that is why there is a growth ring for every significant precipitation event. Multiple rings have been proven in experiments. I am still waiting to for your explanation why there would not be a thin growth ring during a significant summer rainfall that occurs between two dry spells in the dry White Mountain region. I see no other possibility, and have already dealt with your "snow melt in spring" argument.
The fundamental principle of dendrochronology is crossdating (Fig. 1), which is classically defined as the procedure of matching ring width variations . . . among trees that have grown in nearby areas, allowing the identification of the exact year in which each ring formed (Fritts, 1976, p. 534).
Regarding your figure 1, I definitely agree that overlaps as shown in the diagram would make a strong case, provided those are proven annual layers and the annual layers remained annual throughout the chronology. My problem with crossdating is that the overlaps in reality may not be as clear as shown in the diagram. A sequence of four or five rings even if differing in dates would naturally overlap over time merely through statistical probability. We need a long matching sequence as shown in the diagram to eliminate the strong statistical probability of short sequences showing matching patterns.
Note that Foxtail pines (Pinus balfouriana) are closely related to Bristlecone pines ((Pinus longaeva), but the ranges of Great Basin bristlecone, Rocky Mountain bristlecone, and Foxtail pines do not overlap. The Colorado-Green River drainage has separated the 2 Bristlecone pine species for millennia. All three species are used to cross-check the Bristlecone Pine chronology. This inability of any single species to successfully cross-date with Bristlecone Pines is not a strong argument for cross-dating Bristlecone Pines. Neither is it clear if they are specifically referring to the ancient White Mountain Bristlecone Pines which are in the driest region, or possibly they are referring to other stands of these trees. If I could actually see diagrams like Figure 1, it would be easy to see how well they have cross-dated or if the overlaps are merely superficial over a few rings.
Note in passing that the minimum age for the earth is 7,000 years based on single Bristlecone Pines having lived that long. This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have disturbed their growing on top of these mountains -- no world wide flood occurred in this time. A premature conclusion considering that you have not yet shown how a tree in a truly dry area would not respond with growth to each significant summer rainfall between completely arid dry spells in soil that retains no moisture (White Mountains).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
For the simple reasons that : the Irish oak dendrochronology is longer, goes further into the past, than the Bristlecone Pine,the German oak and pine dendrochronology is longer, goes further into the past, than the Bristlecone Pine, the extremely high consilience of these two dendrochronologies shows that the information has an extremely high degree of confidence (a better phrase than "truth" in scientific speak), and the very high consilience (99.5% agreement) of the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology with these two chronologies gives us a very high degree of confidence that it is accurate and precise and actually does represent annual layers. Curiously, if you now accept the Irish and German chronologies, then your original "main problem" Message 3 My problem with the Irish and German chronologies is that they only seem to match the Bristlecone Pine chronologies in ancient times. Even trees in close proximity to the White Mountain bristlecone pines do not show consistent chronology matches in recent times. MY conclusion from the soil/weather of the White Mountains is that the nature of wood growth absolutely requires multiple rings there, and their match with Europe's trees during the Middle/Early holocene indicates that in fact Irish and German chronologies ALSO had multiple rings during the Middle/Early Holocene. Thus early and Middle Holocene dates are out by thousands of years due to the dry weather and intermittent summer rainfalls of the early/middle Holocene causing multiple tree ring growth. The following link is to indicate early holocene dry weather and reduced summer rainfall patterns which match the current weather conditions of the BCP trees in the White Mountains:Just a moment... "We show (i) that winters were drier and summers shorter and cooler in western Europe during colder periods in Greenland, (ii) in contrast to the present-day climate in the Holzmaar region, summer rains were clearly reduced during the early Holocene, and (iii) the climate not only changed rapidly (< 5 years) but recurring drier events were common during the studied period." ie perfect conditions for multiple tree rings existed in Europe (dry cold climate with rare rainfall in the warmer growth season), dates are therefore over-estimated. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given. Edited by mindspawn, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Just for the record, I don't believe in any vast conspiracy. We will be dealing with the consilience continually in our other discussions , I just felt it necessary to state my position on the alleged conspiracy for the record. I believe the "cherry picking" isn't true cherry picking because its unintentional. In other words:
Just making spurious claims is not an argument, denial of evidence is not an argument ... ... these are symptoms in keeping with cognitive dissonance theory quote: ie - your way of telling yourself that the evidence can safely be ignored rather than faced. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks for the educational post. It didn't cover our points of dispute though and so I quoted only the relevant sections. I feel you still have not faced the fact that the Bristlecone Pines are in a unique situation, lacking any gradual transitions between favorable and unfavorable conditions. The conditions are always unfavorable, that is why there is a growth ring for every significant precipitation event. Multiple rings have been proven in experiments. And yet, curiously, the part you quoted tells you and shows you the difference between stress rings and end-of-year rings:
quote: Look at the rings just to the right of the false band and the ones just to the right of the winter band - are they remotely the same?
I am still waiting to for your explanation why there would not be a thin growth ring during a significant summer rainfall that occurs between two dry spells in the dry White Mountain region. I see no other possibility, and have already dealt with your "snow melt in spring" argument. Because trees have reserves that they can use between rainfalls, but this doesn't happen in the winter because they are frozen.
Regarding your figure 1, I definitely agree that overlaps as shown in the diagram would make a strong case, provided those are proven annual layers and the annual layers remained annual throughout the chronology. ... Which is definitely the case with the twos oak chronologies that somehow still match the Bristlecone pine chronology with only 0.5% error after 7600 years.
... My problem with crossdating is that the overlaps in reality may not be as clear as shown in the diagram. A sequence of four or five rings even if differing in dates would naturally overlap over time merely through statistical probability. We need a long matching sequence as shown in the diagram to eliminate the strong statistical probability of short sequences showing matching patterns. Which is easily demonstrated with the Bristlecone pines -- living trees with ~5,000 years of rings matched with standing dead trees with ~7,000 years of rings ... unless you think they have stood for thousands of years, would have thousands of years of rings to match. Also notice that the overlap shown in Fig 1 has consilient rings between all three pieces so the overlaps are normally much more than "four or five rings" -- again you must think the dendrochronologists are incompetent, naive and ignorant ... but that doesn't matter -- you are not explaining the consilience between the three chronologies with ad hoc nit-picking that IF TRUE would mean the matches between the chronologies could not logically have occurred.
This inability of any single species to successfully cross-date with Bristlecone Pines is not a strong argument for cross-dating Bristlecone Pines. ... What inability???????????? Did you not understand? That is a symptom in keeping with cognitive dissonance theory quote: The Bristlecone pines have not only been cross-checked between their two species living in separate isolated communities, but with the Foxtail pine and with the Ponderosa pine chronology.
A premature conclusion considering that you have not yet shown how a tree in a truly dry area would not respond with growth to each significant summer rainfall between completely arid dry spells in soil that retains no moisture (White Mountains). Except (a) I have shown the difference between a stress band and a winter band, and (b) the consilience with the other chronologies gives high confidence in the Bristlecone pine chronology. More on this in the next post Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : cog/disby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
A premature conclusion considering that you have not yet shown how a tree in a truly dry area would not respond with growth to each significant summer rainfall between completely arid dry spells in soil that retains no moisture (White Mountains). Curiously, I have addressed this fantasy before. Let's look at the facts about Bristlecone pines in a little more detail (I've updated this for the latest information on climate so this basically summarizes my argument on Bristlecone pines): Bristlecone Pines As we saw in Message 41, Dendrochronology Basics, the oldest known non-clonal trees are all Bristlecone Pines:
At this point we don't know from the information available when the ~7,000 year old dead trees died -- it could have been last year, 10 years ago, maybe 100 years ago, or more. What we do know is that the methodology of dendrochronology can be used to combine it, and other old wood (some dead wood is lying on the ground in these same areas), and specimens from other sites into a complete chronology spanning thousands of years. We also know that such a chronology has been made, and it was updated in 1985:
Dendrochronology of Bristlecone Pine(1)
quote: The dendrochronology extends back to 6,700 BCE, but there are older samples floating off the end of the continuous absolute chronology. The Bristlecone Pine chronology does not rely on just one species, but uses two closely related species for a cross-reference: The primary source is the Great Basin Bristlecone Pine: Pinus longaeva(2)
quote: Great Basin bristlecone pine Pinaceae Pinus longaeva ID Fact Sheet(3)
quote: All the oldest Bristlecone pines are Great Basin bristlecone pines, Pinus longaeva. The secondary source is the Rocky Mountain Bristlecone Pine: Pinus aristata(4)
quote: Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine Pinaceae Pinus aristata ID Fact Sheet(5)
quote: The climate and ecology of the Bristlecone pine is high, dry and cool, with minimal precipitation, most occuring as snow, which occurs even in July. The trees have adapted to the environment by taking advantage of the resources available.
Substrate-oriented distribution of Bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California(6)
quote: (*) - Note that I added a column for annual totals. Note the only month without snow is August, and the highest rainfall is in July. July would also be when the snow melts, so it would be the wettest month of the year for growing, and August would be the driest. By combining actual measurements of soil moisture, with respiration and photosynthesis into one graph (taking respiration and photosynthesis values from Fig 7 for the moisture levels shown in Fig 4) the graph below demonstrates how the dolomite storage of water would enable the Bristlecone pine to grow through this high elevation short growing season, from late spring snow melt in July to early fall snowfall in September and short summer (August):
This shows 5 weeks at the center of the growing season and that the growth continues for the whole period. This would apply to a theoretical sapling with root penetration to 20 cm. Older trees have deeper roots and would be able to access more water from greater depths. The Bristlecone Pine chronology can be (and has been) cross-checked with Ponderosa Pine and Foxtail Pine chronologies for accuracy, but this doesn't necessarily demonstrate the accuracy and precision of dendrochronology. How else can the accuracy and precision of this dendrochronology be checked? By cross-dating it with known historical data:
What Causes the Jet Stream to Change its Course?(7)
quote: 2,040-year-old tree's rings read like global history(8)
quote: Extreme Weather Events of 535—536(9)
quote: Volcanoes, ice-cores and tree-rings: one story or two?(10)
quote: Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causes(11)
quote: Because the Bristlecone pines grow at such high elevations they have very short periods of growth when the temperature is only slightly higher than required for growth. It is entirely feasible that some years would not get warm enough to allow growth and this would result in missing rings that would make the chronology too young. Thus there is 100% accuracy and precision of the Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology at 42 BCE, 536 CE and 1816 CE, correlating with actual historical events, as a start. This provides high confidence in the accuracy and precision of this chronology in specific and dendrochronology in general.
The earth is at least 8,713 years old (2013) The minimum age for the earth is now at least 8,713 years old (2013), based on the accurate and precise Bristlecone Pine dendrochronology. This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have disturbed their growing on top of these mountains or dispersed any dead wood lying on the ground -- no world wide flood occurred in this time. This is already older than many YEC models (6,000 years for those using Archbishop Usher's assumption filled calculations of a starting date of 4004 BCE). And this is only the start of annual counting methods. Enjoy. References
Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : sp Edited by RAZD, : changed ref 1 to more accurate articlechronology extends to 6700 BCE Edited by RAZD, : not answered yet, so I updated it with new informationby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
My problem with the Irish and German chronologies is that they only seem to match the Bristlecone Pine chronologies in ancient times. Even trees in close proximity to the White Mountain bristlecone pines do not show consistent chronology matches in recent times. ... An assertion contradicted by facts. Perhaps you could provide a link to show this lack of consistency rather than just assert it. Or did you misinterpret the information I provided in Message 41?
... MY conclusion from the soil/weather of the White Mountains is that the nature of wood growth absolutely requires multiple rings there, ... But that's not a conclusion it is an a priori assumption based on fantasy, working backwards from belief, and unsupported by evidence. And I have shown this to be a false assertion, most recently in Message 51. You are wrong about the soil and wrong about the weather, and your magical mysterious 11-12 stress rings (a) would be identified by an average dendrochronologist and (b) would have to be on the order of 1/2" of rain in weekly installments -- hardly stressful conditions for any tree, and certainly not stressful for the hardy Bristlecone pines that have evolved to handle the extreme ecology they inhabit, including the ability to store and use water over extended periods. The more extreme inhabitants grow on dolomite because it provides another storehouse of water.
... , and their match with Europe's trees during the Middle/Early holocene indicates that in fact Irish and German chronologies ALSO had multiple rings during the Middle/Early Holocene. ... Except that this doesn't show why the pattern is exactly, precisely, and accurately the same ... with only 0.5% error over thousands of years. This is just you making stuff up to try to resolve the dissonance caused by this information.
... Thus early and Middle Holocene dates are out by thousands of years due to the dry weather and intermittent summer rainfalls of the early/middle Holocene causing multiple tree ring growth. Again, that's not a conclusion it is an a priori assumption based on fantasy, working backwards from belief, and unsupported by evidence.
The following link is to indicate early holocene dry weather and reduced summer rainfall patterns which match the current weather conditions of the BCP trees in the White Mountains: Can you show this match graphically? or is it just another completely non-evidenced assertion?
Just a moment... "We show (i) that winters were drier and summers shorter and cooler in western Europe during colder periods in Greenland, (ii) in contrast to the present-day climate in the Holzmaar region, summer rains were clearly reduced during the early Holocene, and (iii) the climate not only changed rapidly (< 5 years) but recurring drier events were common during the studied period." Reduced and drier do not mean drought ... And as I have said before, that is not really news (Message 28):
The 12,460-year Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring chronology from central Europea unique annual record for radiocarbon calibration and paleoenvironment reconstructions. Radiocarbon 46, No 3, pages 1111—1122. here with the Full PDF Download Here quote: The entire Holocene (modern era) is now covered by the German oak/pine chronology, including the climate information shown in the tree ring widths. The trees used grew in the flood plain near rivers, meaning you need to show that the rivers dried up for substantial durations and then cram that in to 11-12 mysterious magical growing events. You haven't even begun to show this. A poor growing season means a narrow ring, not multiple rings. In addition if there were a significant stress event it would show up as a stress ring rather than a winter ring.
Message 51: ... the part you quoted tells you and shows you the difference between stress rings and end-of-year rings:
quote: Look at the rings just to the right of the false band and the ones just to the right of the winter band - are they remotely the same? The difference is readily apparent to dendrochronologists, especially for deciduous trees like oaks. Not only is there a difference in cell size, but the walls are thinner in early growth than in later growth.
ie perfect conditions for multiple tree rings existed in Europe (dry cold climate with rare rainfall in the warmer growth season), dates are therefore over-estimated. Again, that's not a conclusion it is an a priori assumption based on fantasy, working backwards from belief, and unsupported by evidence. You are grasping at straws here. You need to show actual evidence of your mysterious magical events, not just presuppose them. I'll let you respond to these and the next two post (one about Irish oaks and one about German oaks and pines) before posting anymore. Meantime I have requested a copy of your Holocene climate paper so I can see what it says beyond the abstract. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : ...by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
As we saw in Message 52, Bristlecone Pines, there are two other dendrochronologies of interest in measuring the age of the earth by counting annual layers: the Irish oak and the German oak (and pine) chronologies.
My recollection is that dendrochronology started with oak trees in Europe, by setting up a database of oak tree sections from archaeological sites and matching different sections that overlapped in time to build a complete lineage of tree ring dates. Unlike the Bristlecone pines the Irish oak is not environmentally challenged:
Northern Ireland: climate(1)
quote: Thus we can have high confidence that the tree rings are annual layers and not due to environmental factors. The common name for this species is "Post Oak" due to its natural resistance to rot thus making a good material for posts in ancient constructions. This also means that there are a lot of samples that are referenced to and associated with archaeological finds, finds that can be dated by other means, including historical documents as far back as the history goes. Oaks are also considered one of the best species for dendrochronology.
Useful Tree Species for Tree-Ring Dating(2)
quote: Note that sources of error are identified and accounted for. Crossdating is one method to check for errors. Another is to build two independent chronologies from the same species in two different locations. For an idea of the accuracy of the data and the amount of error involved we have this:
INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP, PDF(3)
quote: The Bristlecone Pine is not included in the calibration data because it is 37 years younger than the two oak chronologies at 7600 BP (before 1950). This is an error of only 0.48% at 5650 BCE, which is very high accuracy.
High-precision 14C measurement of Irish oaks to show the natural 14C variations from AD 1840 to 5210 BC(4)
quote: The symbol is parts per thousand, so this is <0.25% error in >7000 years for the Irish oak. This chronology extends back to 5210 BCE.
High-precision 14C measurement of German and Irish oaks to show the natural 14C variations from 7890 to 5000 BC.(5)
quote: The chronology now extends back to 7980 BCE, or 9930 BP (before 1950), slightly longer than the Bristlecone Pine chronology. The significant point though, is not the extension of the annual layer count, but the consilience of the data from the two systems ... as noted in Message 3 they agree to within 37 years at 7600 BP, an error of only 0.48% at 5650 BCE, which is very high accuracy. This consiliency adds to our confidence in the accuracy and precision of the data. As we saw in Message 52 there was evidence of volcanoes in the tree rings of both Bristlecone Pines and Irish oaks:
Extreme Weather Events of 535—536 quote: So there is consilience between history and the Irish oak chronology: 100% accuracy and precision at 1816 CE and 536 CE, the same as the Bristlecone pine: three independent sources of information with the same values. This high consilience gives us high confidence in the accuracy and precision of the Irish oak chronology (and increases our confidence in the Bristlecone pine chronology). Then there is Egyptian history and the dating of various finds:
Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt(6)
quote: Note that there are several other sample dates with similar correlation of 14C measurement to dendrochronology correlations, here it is the earliest/oldest set that is of interest as a measure of accuracy and precision. The earliest/oldest 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 using the IntCal04(3) correlation curves (which uses the Irish oak dendrochronology) 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 Irish oak chronology. This chronology extends back to 7980 BCE, to 9930 BP (before 1950), and now ~1/2 of its length is anchored by historical events\artifacts, and most of it's length, to 8650 BCE, is consilient with the Bristlecone pine chronology with 99.5% accuracy and precision. This results in very high confidence for the accuracy and precision of the chronology.
The earth is at least 9,993 years old (2013) The minimum age for the earth is now at least 9,993 years old (2013), based on the highly accurate and precise Irish oak dendrochronology. This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have disturbed the growth of any of the overlapping trees -- no world wide flood occurred in this time. This is already significantly older than many YEC models (6,000 years for those using Archbishop Usher's assumption filled calculations of a starting date of 4004 BC). And this is still only the start of annual counting methods. Enjoy. References
Edited by Admin, : Narrow image slightly. Edited by Admin, : Narrow image slightly again. Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : added egyptby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
German Oak and Pine As we saw in Message 52, Bristlecone Pines, there are two other dendrochronologies of interest in measuring the age of the earth by counting annual layers: the Irish oak, covered in Message 54, and the German oak (and pine) chronologies. Also unlike the Bristlecone pines the German oak and pine is not environmentally challenged:
Germany Climate Statistics(1)
These rainfall records are different from each other, and they are different from the Irish records ( Message 54). They also show sufficient rainfall in any one month that the trees would not be water limited in their growth. The months of highest rain are in the summer as opposed to Ireland when they were in the winter, so the correlation of the rings does not depend on weather events.Thus we can have high confidence that the tree rings are annual layers and not due to environmental factors.
INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP, PDF(2)
quote: There are several things to note here. First, is that there are three (3) main chronologies: one of Bristlecone Pine and two of European Oak, one German and one Irish. Second, is that originally one oak chronology was "not good enough" to be included in the IntCal98 - because it was off by 41 years in ~8,000 years, an error of 0.51%. Third, is that when the oak chronology was corrected, it was not the odd one out, but the one that previously agreed with the Bristlecone Pine chronology. Fourth, the Bristlecone Pine chronology is now considered "not good enough" - because it is off by 37 years in 7,600 years, an error of 0.48%. Fifth, that where some German Oak samples had been placed by carbon-14 levels in the earlier chronology (used in IntCal98) these are now placed by additional tree samples that fill in the consecutive chronology (and the initial carbon-14 levels are not now used to place those samples). Finally, that the European Oak absolute chronology now extends back to 9,147 years BP with cross dating, and that including all three in one data set means that the error involved is on the order of 0.5% - over the whole period of time covered. The IntCal04 discussion doesn't give the breakdown on the actual ages of each chronology, but it refers to a paper that does.
The 12,460-year Hohenheim oak and pine tree-ring chronology from Central Europe - a unique annual record for radiocarbon calibration and paleoenvironment reconstructions(3)
quote: The German oak chronology extends back to 10,429 BP (before 1950) or 8489 BCE. The Preboreal pine chronology has been absolutely linked to the oak chronology and extends back to 12,410 cal BP, or 10,461 BCE. Note that "floating" chronologies are ones not tied to an absolutely known date as occurs with "absolute" chronologies. There are many other floating dendrochronologies, including some that extend further into the past, but they are not discussed here as they can't be tied by climate correlations to the existing absolute dendrochronologies. Note further that carbon-14 measurements and age calculations are not discussed yet, as the focus is on the accuracy and precision of the tree ring chronologies. These chronologies have been tied to the historical record back to 42 BCE, and there are indications that other volcanic events are also recorded further in the past, with data that shows up in the ice core dating ... which will be discussing later.
The earth is at least 12,473 years old (2013) The minimum age for the earth is now at least 12,473 years old (2013), based on the highly accurate and precise German oak and pine dendrochronology. This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have disturbed the growth of any of the overlapping trees -- no world wide flood occurred in this time. This is significantly older than many YEC models (6,000 years for those using Archbishop Usher's assumption filled calculations of a starting date of 4004 BC). And this is still only the start of annual counting methods. Enjoy. References
Edited by RAZD, : 42 not 44 Edited by RAZD, : sp Edited by RAZD, : linkby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
AND compared them to previous determinations that were done in the lab -- as I documented. The new values have smaller errors but otherwise replicate the previous ones, and the consilience from using a different methodology to determine their values once again provides high confidence in their accuracy and precision. Again, if you want to see the lab obtained independent values I suggest you do some reading. Starting here: Half-life of 230Th. It is on-line and tells how the half-life was measured independently in the lab. Nice one, looking at your link I see they did use the specific activity method to determine the half life of Thorium 230, have you got any evidence for how the half-life of Uranium 234 was established? Whether we look at Thorium 230, Uranium 234, Uranium 238 or carbon dating, we have the same problem that the magnetic field effect on radiocarbon and radioactive elements is largely unknown and has to be calibrated against an additional source of accurate dates. To check carbon dating against radioactive dating does not promote confidence when both forms of dating underwent the same proportionate increase in magnetic field strength a few thousand years ago, and both decay rates are affected by the magnetic field. Conclusion: Ur-Th dating as with carbon dating underwent the same magnetic field effects to the decay rates in the past, therefore their consilience. However the dates are inaccurate because the magnetic field was a lot stronger back then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined:
|
And yet, curiously, the part you quoted tells you and shows you the difference between stress rings and end-of-year rings: your quote:" The key to distinguishing between double or false rings and annual rings lies in the nature of the transition between the latewood and earlywood cells: in a false or double ring the transition is gradual due to the phasing in and out of favorable growing condition" Yes I did say that I quoted the relevant parts, that is why I included that comment about stress rings. I then explained that bristlecone pines are continuously under temperature/moisture stress owing to the dryness of the soil. If you look at the weather and soil of the white Mountains there is no gradual "phasing in and out of favorable conditions". ie conditions do not favor stress rings, they favor multiple rings due to the complete dry-out between rain spells.
Look at the rings just to the right of the false band and the ones just to the right of the winter band - are they remotely the same? Irrelevant because in the White Mountains the conditions do not favor stress rings due to the lack of "gradual phasing in and out of favorable growing conditions". Each summer rainfall followed by a dry spell of a few weeks favors a whole new growth ring, this is how wood actually grows.
Because trees have reserves that they can use between rainfalls, but this doesn't happen in the winter because they are frozen. This has been your only good point so far regarding my claim of multiple rings. If you can prove that the reserves of these specific trees in especially dry areas cause continuous growth for many weeks without rainfall your point is made. Until then its more logical that after a few weeks of dry spell in one of the driest soils on earth, the tree would stop producing wood until the next summer rainfall. From your post 50
all dendrochronologists are bumbling idiots too naive, ignorant and incompetent to notice something you only believe has happened If dendrochronologists overlook an obvious fact that trees completely starved of moisture during their growth season do actually stop growing , then this is incompetent. In their defense though they wouldn't want their findings to contradict evolutionary timeframes and bring down the ridicule of the establishment, so its the establishment's fault that open-mindedness has been replaced by an almost religious fervour to support evolution and mock those who question it. This mocking attitude of the establishment is suppressing true science in much the same manner as some members of this board resort to swearing and ridicule instead of a pleasant exchange of ideas. Oh well.....
Which is easily demonstrated with the Bristlecone pines -- living trees with ~5,000 years of rings matched with standing dead trees with ~7,000 years of rings ... unless you think they have stood for thousands of years, would have thousands of years of rings to match. Also notice that the overlap shown in Fig 1 has consilient rings between all three pieces so the overlaps are normally much more than "four or five rings" -- again you must think the dendrochronologists are incompetent, naive and ignorant ... but that doesn't matter -- you are not explaining the consilience between the three chronologies with ad hoc nit-picking that IF TRUE would mean the matches between the chronologies could not logically have occurred. If the overlaps are easily demonstrated with Bristlecone pines, then please demonstrate it. Like I said before, if the actual cross-dating rings had as much overlap as the diagrammatic representation, that would be a convincing case. But even if you match barcodes of four categories (thin, thick, black, white) they would show a statistical tendency of a perfect match of 4 bars every 336 bars using a random starting point. So the length of matching sequence is essential to reduce the obvious statistical probability of an error in sequence matching.
What inability???????????? Did you not understand? That is a symptom in keeping with cognitive dissonance theory not quite cognitive dissonance."Note that Foxtail pines (Pinus balfouriana) are closely related to Bristlecone pines ((Pinus longaeva), but the ranges of Great Basin bristlecone, Rocky Mountain bristlecone, and Foxtail pines do not overlap. The Colorado-Green River drainage has separated the 2 Bristlecone pine species for millennia. All three species are used to cross-check the Bristlecone Pine chronology." Your quote appears to indicate that they cannot rely only on one species for the full chronology due to the fact that the ranges do not overlap. They use all 3 species for cross-checking. If I am incorrect in this interpretation then kindly show me your evidence that despite no overlap of ranges they were able to use any one of these species to cross-check the full Bristlecone Pine chronology.
Except (a) I have shown the difference between a stress band and a winter band, and (b) the consilience with the other chronologies gives high confidence in the Bristlecone pine chronology. I have explained how stress bands are not applicable to the White Mountain BCP trees if we refer to your quotes on how stress bands are formed. Its possible that certain other species in similar areas would also undergo multiple rings, but not as consistently unless they exist in the same or nearby stands as those ancient BCP trees. This would explain the matching patterns when the BCP chronology is cross-checked with other species. It would help your argument if you could show recent (eg 1816) cross-matching between these dry area regions and the European wetter region chronologies. This would help to prove your case that even the BCP trees have annual rings. Cross matching between BCP trees and European trees during the dry periods of the early or mid Holocene but not recently only serves to strengthen my point.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
An assertion contradicted by facts. Perhaps you could provide a link to show this lack of consistency rather than just assert it. Or did you misinterpret the information I provided in Message 41? Fair enough I cannot prove this lack of consistency. Are you able to prove that recent BCP tree ring sequences match with trees in areas known for wetter climates and soils (eg European tree ring chronologies). To prove this is essential for your whole argument. In an earlier post you stated the following:"Curiously, the fact remains that the Irish Oak and the German Oak and Pine chronologies are not in precipitation sensitive environments, they are indeed annual rings, and they agree with the Bristlecone Pine chronology for over 8,000 years with 99.5% agreement." But in a later post you quote the following:"The relation between North American and European wood has been studied using bristlecone pine (BCP) and European oak (German oak and Irish oak), respectively. Discrepancies have become evident over the years, in particular when the German oak was corrected by a dendro-shift of 41 yr towards older ages (Kromer et al. 1996). Attempts were made to resolve the discrepancies by remeasuring BCP samples, measured earlier in Tucson (Linick et al. 1986). The University of Arizona Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research provided dendrochronologically dated bristlecone pine samples to Heidelberg (wood from around 4700 and 7600 cal BP), Groningen (around 7500 cal BP), Pretoria (around 4900 cal BP), and Seattle (around 7600 cal BP). The replicate measurements have a mean offset of 37 +/- 6 14C yr (n = 21) from the Tucson measurements." (99.5% agreement?)
But that's not a conclusion it is an a priori assumption based on fantasy, working backwards from belief, and unsupported by evidence. Of course you would say that. But everyone knows that trees would actually stop growing in summer during extended dry spells in extreme dry soil conditions, wood needs moisture to grow. Any denial of this is a head-in-the-sand approach to truth.
And I have shown this to be a false assertion, most recently in Message 51. You are wrong about the soil and wrong about the weather, and your magical mysterious 11-12 stress rings (a) would be identified by an average dendrochronologist and (b) would have to be on the order of 1/2" of rain in weekly installments -- hardly stressful conditions for any tree, and certainly not stressful for the hardy Bristlecone pines that have evolved to handle the extreme ecology they inhabit, including the ability to store and use water over extended periods. The more extreme inhabitants grow on dolomite because it provides another storehouse of water. I dealt with your stress ring assumption in the previous post. These are not stress rings and do not conform to your description of stress rings. An absolute stop to a wet season would not cause a stress ring, it would cause an end to a ring. Renewed rainfall would create another ring. These would in no way form multiple stress rings but would mimic wet and dry seasonal rings. I accept your point about dolomite, but this merely allows the tree to live where others cannot live by extending its source of water. Other trees would die, this does not disprove the temporary suspension of growth the tree would undergo during extensive dry spells. I already pointed out that these trees do actually undergo multiple rings in experimental situations under mimicked conditions. I am not wrong about the soil or the weather, I am mainly in agreement with you about the weather so if I am wrong then so are you. I believe your one quote slightly underestimates the actual rainfall figures in the arid region east of the sierra mountains when compared to actual figures as recorded in nearby weather stations. I also believe your quote overestimates the proportion of snow to rainfall, but the same situation would apply even with your rainfall figures. There would still be a few summer rainfalls of over an inch interspersed with absolutely dry soils , and therefore multiple growth rings per year. Regarding the dryness of the area here are some quotes:"Stands of high elevation white pines are typically found on exposed, dry, and rocky slopes, ridges, and mountain peaks. They are well adapted to survive in the inhospitable environmental conditions that exist in these locations including intense cold, drought, wind, and blowing snow and ice." "The White Mountains are also one of the driest mountain ranges in the world for its height" "Explore the mysterious White Mountains of the California-Nevada border. ... and the third highest peak in California, is one of the driest regions on Earth." "The dry climate and high altitude make this region a rare environment" "Bristlecone pine displays its characteristic gnarled, twisted form as it rises above the arid, dolomite-rich slopes of the White Mountains " Except that this doesn't show why the pattern is exactly, precisely, and accurately the same ... with only 0.5% error over thousands of years. This is just you making stuff up to try to resolve the dissonance caused by this information We seem to be agreeing that the two chronologies match. So I am failing to see why I am trying to resolve dissonance when I agree the two chronologies match. This is central to my argument and it is also central to yours. I am only disputing a RECENT match between the two chronologies due to my claim that current conditions favor multiple rings in the White Mountains but NOT in Europe. Previously both regions were dry, they would match. Nevertheless I cannot find your link that proves the two chronologies match by 99.5%, could you kindly post the link again so that I can review your evidence.
Again, that's not a conclusion it is an a priori assumption based on fantasy, working backwards from belief, and unsupported by evidence. In a cold dry environment but with only intermittent summer rainfalls, the nature of trees is that they do stop growing between rainfalls. The weather during the early holocene was often cold and dry with limited summer rainfall, perfect for multiple rings. Dendrochronologists have not taken this into account, but trees have no other way to grow, except these rare summer rainfalls. In between they would stop growing, so even in Europe there would have to have been multiple rings. (I am going to enjoy your response to this because I am right, evolutionists will froth at the mouth and ask for evidence and deny the truth, and the neutral readers will note that I have to be correct).
Can you show this match graphically? or is it just another completely non-evidenced assertion? I am relying on your assertions that the two chronologies match, and also noting that both regions had dry cold periods with low summer rainfalls, perfect conditions for multiple rings interspersed by matching worldwide events.
Reduced and drier do not mean drought ... And as I have said before, that is not really news (Message 28): I never mentioned drought and so am wondering why you mentioned it? The following weather conditions would largely mimic the current White Mountain weather:Just a moment... "We show (i) that winters were drier and summers shorter and cooler in western Europe during colder periods in Greenland, (ii) in contrast to the present-day climate in the Holzmaar region, summer rains were clearly reduced during the early Holocene, and (iii) the climate not only changed rapidly (< 5 years) but recurring drier events were common during the studied period." The entire Holocene (modern era) is now covered by the German oak/pine chronology, including the climate information shown in the tree ring widths. The trees used grew in the flood plain near rivers, meaning you need to show that the rivers dried up for substantial durations and then cram that in to 11-12 mysterious magical growing events. You haven't even begun to show this. A poor growing season means a narrow ring, not multiple rings. In addition if there were a significant stress event it would show up as a stress ring rather than a winter ring. Could you kindly prove that the earlier trees in the German chronology were also experiencing flood plain conditions? If so how well drained was the soil between floods? If not then what was the weather like during the earlier period?
Again, that's not a conclusion it is an a priori assumption based on fantasy, working backwards from belief, and unsupported by evidence. You are grasping at straws here. You need to show actual evidence of your mysterious magical events, not just presuppose them. I'll let you respond to these and the next two post (one about Irish oaks and one about German oaks and pines) before posting anymore. Meantime I have requested a copy of your Holocene climate paper so I can see what it says beyond the abstract. I posted this earlier in this thread, the following describes how tree rings are precipitation and temperature sensitive and this is compounded by dry soils:http://web.utk.edu/~grissino/principles.htm "As used in dendrochronology, this principle states that rates of plant processes are constrained by the primary environmental variable(s) that is most limiting. For example, precipitation is often the most limiting factor to plant growth in arid and semiarid areas. In these regions, tree growth cannot proceed faster than that allowed by the amount of precipitation, causing the width of the rings (i.e., the volume of wood produced) to be a function of precipitation. In some locations (for example, in higher latitudes and elevations), temperature is often the most limiting factor. For many forest trees, especially those growing in temperate and/or closed canopy conditions, climatic factors may not be most limiting. Instead, processes related to stand dynamics (especially competition for nutrients and light) may be most limiting to tree growth. In addition, the factor that is most limiting is often acted upon by other non-climatic factors. While precipitation may be limiting in semiarid regions, the effects of the low precipitation amounts may be compounded by well-drained (e.g. sandy) soils."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mindspawn Member (Idle past 2908 days) Posts: 1015 Joined: |
As we saw in Message 52, Bristlecone Pines, there are two other dendrochronologies of interest in measuring the age of the earth by counting annual layers: the Irish oak and the German oak (and pine) chronologies. My recollection is that dendrochronology started with oak trees in Europe, by setting up a database of oak tree sections from archaeological sites and matching different sections that overlapped in time to build a complete lineage of tree ring dates. Unlike the Bristlecone pines the Irish oak is not environmentally challenged: No problem with this, like I have said before I agree that recent tree ring chronologies in Europe are based on annual rings, and are highly accurate and consilient with known world events. Weather patterns beyond 2000bp were often dryer in Europe and that is where the multiple rings become applicable.
Thus we can have high confidence that the tree rings are annual layers and not due to environmental factors. The common name for this species is "Post Oak" due to its natural resistance to rot thus making a good material for posts in ancient constructions. This also means that there are a lot of samples that are referenced to and associated with archaeological finds, finds that can be dated by other means, including historical documents as far back as the history goes. Oaks are also considered one of the best species for dendrochronology. Archaeological finds are often dated using carbon dating, which like tree rings in Europe and also our knowledge of historical dates are all pretty accurate until about 2000 years ago. Earlier than that, the earth was often subjected to regular monsoon type weather and other weather patterns different to today's weather that could result in multiple rings per year. For example, the Mid-Holocene had global monsoon weather:MyWebSpace has Retired
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1653 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Nice one, looking at your link I see they did use the specific activity method to determine the half life of Thorium 230, have you got any evidence for how the half-life of Uranium 234 was established? For now let's look at the "well known" value for 238: http://prc.aps.org/abstract/PRC/v4/i5/p1889_1
quote: So that is two of the three isotopes/elements.
Whether we look at Thorium 230, Uranium 234, Uranium 238 or carbon dating, we have the same problem that the magnetic field effect on radiocarbon and radioactive elements is largely unknown and has to be calibrated against an additional source of accurate dates. ... uh ... nope. The magnetic field has no measurable effect on the rate of decay of any element/isotope. It affects the production of 14C in the atmosphere by gamma rays hitting Nitrogen atoms: How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks (5)
quote: This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 by beta- decay: Glossary Term - Beta Decay (7)
quote: Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being produced or replenished while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of 12C and 14C existing in the atmosphere at the time.
... To check carbon dating against radioactive dating does not promote confidence when both forms of dating underwent the same proportionate increase in magnetic field strength a few thousand years ago, and both decay rates are affected by the magnetic field. What is being checked by correlating 14C levels against known calendar dates is the amount of 14C in the atmosphere at the time samples were living and getting carbon from the atmosphere. This level is well known to vary with sunspot activity (generation of gamma rays) and with earth's magnetic field that protects the earth from gamma rays. The decay rate for carbon-14 is also well known: λ14C is 5730 years +/- 40 (Godwin, 1962), and this has been discussed before ( Message 22) the reference list from the paper with that graph is presented for reference was provided in Message 28, and it is no 48: Godwin, H., 1962. Half-life of radiocarbon. Nature 195, 984. The variable that is being calibrated by these correlations is not λ14C but No, as previously discussed in Message 42:
quote: Conclusion: Ur-Th dating as with carbon dating underwent the same magnetic field effects to the decay rates in the past, therefore their consilience. However the dates are inaccurate because the magnetic field was a lot stronger back then. Pure hokum, likely due to misunderstanding what is known and what is being calibrated. Ur-Th dating is not affected by the magnetic field to any measurable degree. So no, that does not explain the consilience. Enjoyby our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024