Age Correlations and an Old Earth: Version 1 No 3 (formerly Part III)

quote:

---

The actual research used in "Master Tree Ring Chronology" is still a closelly guarded secret as far as I know. However, the extension of the chronology beyond the oldest living tree (ca. 4000 years) involved the use of "dead wood" and a process of matching pieces of dead wood that requires a lot of statistical guess work. It is more of an art. Brown states that the data is not accessable for creationist peer review

---

I don't believe this is accurate. The central laboratory in the US for tree ring chronology is the Dendrochronology Lab at the U of AZ. Years ago, The folks there told me that they DO open their data to others, including many YECs who had visited and tried in vain to find technical problems with their chronology.Since you don't believe that either tree rings or varves can be counted accurately, how do you explain their close agreement? In the calibration curves from each, we can see "wiggles" due to radiocarbon production variations. These wiggles match fairly well between the two records. And the calibration curves are within about 15% of the simplistic assumption that the radiocarbon production rate has always been constant at its recent value. This is strong evidence that the "years" obtained by counting tree rings and varves are the same lengths, and that they can't be much different from real calendar years. How do you explain these agreements?

quote:

---

You did not provide any links that go straight to data or photos, just general sites. That's not good enough. The burden of finding where the data is is not on me. I am not going to research where it is, and if it requires a FOIA then it is practically inaccessable. I want to know where the full research report for the 8000 year tree ring chronology is and the full research report for the 800,000 antarctic core. I want all the chemical analaysis, all the O-18, all the wiggle matches. A straight link to all the research notes, a brief on the philosophical positions of each researcher.
Then we have to look at modeling assumptions, paleo climate assumptions.
And even then, bad science may be involved. We must reasonable rule out a hoax.
But, I'll consider it good faith if you can just give me the direct link to the 8000 tree ring chronology. I don't think you CAN provide a link to anything as simple as all the sample codes and list of tree ring widths with 14C dates and lab reports for each piece. Either the whole thing will do, or the part that goes from 4000 b.p. back to 8000 b.p.

---

A number of scientific papers relating to radiocarbon calibration (matching radiocarbon ot tree rings, varves, speleothems, etc) are here:
http://radiocarbon.library.arizona.edu/Volume46/Number3/The paper starting at page 1029 provides a good overview. The one starting at p. 1093 details the statistical methods that are used. The one starting at p. 1111 gives some details of tree rings back to ~12,000 years.But I'm sure this will not satisfy you. You don't seem to understand how science is done. Scientists rarely (if ever) publish the "raw data" that you are demanding to see. It is ridiculous to ask for "all the research notes" or "a brief on the philosophical positions of each researcher."Publishing all of the raw data would be unworkable; a three page paper would expand to 300 pages and no one could sort through it. If another researcher is suspicious of some part of the analysis he may contact the authors directly and ask specific questions (not "show me all of your raw data", but specific questions about the procedures used). More commonly, a suspicious scientist will repeat everything himself; he will gather his own data and do his own measurements and analysis.