Further support for C14 dating is shown by varves in the Cariaco basin with winter-spring plankton growth and summer-fall increase in terrigenous grains. Starting at 12,000 BP the varve count versus C14 date curve follows that of Lake Suigetsu and goes out to 50.000 BP. U/Th to C14 pairs from corals to 24,000 BP fall on the same line. The Cariaco results are reported to correlate with Greenland cores, Bahamas speleothem, and North Atlantic cores. Interestingly, there is a rise in C14 age from 34,000 to 41,000 in just 2000 varve counts. This seems also to be shown in Lake Suigetsu and is attributed to variation in the solar wind. This sharp rise and the reported plateaus in the C14 curve at 750- 450 BC and at 11,000 to 10,000 BP help to show that real results are being reported, and not just "correct" ones as some YEC might claim.
Hi RAZD. The Cariaco report is at http://courses.washington.edu/...ariaco_14C_0-50ka_Sci04.pdf and includes graphs. It seems to be anchored by C14 dating and ice-core comparison. The Wiki article on Carbon Dating mentions the plateau at 10,000 -11,000years. I did not record where I saw the referral to the 750-450 BC plateau, but it seems to show on your dendrochronology graph. The Cariaco article also mentions other plateaus in the record. I have been looking at the reports of ice and deep-sea cores. There is an immense amount of information in them which would be very difficult to squeeze in to a YEC paradigm, including many more correlations.
Thanks Coyote for the links. Further problems for the Flood (if any were needed). Many if not most Flood proponents associate it with rapid plate tectonics which would cause massive vulcanism. This should show as a huge spike in volcanic material in ice and sea cores, which is not seen in the last few million years. Megavolcanic signs are seen but too long ago and not on the stupendous scale required.
I have previously been a member of a YEC believing church but have been able to follow the evidence and change. However I think I can understand the problems for some believers. When you have invested a life-time of effort and means into the church, the idea that you might have been wrong all along could be too painful to contemplate, so you shut your ears to any disturbing evidence. You just take the line of some of the Creation websites and say any evidence that contradicts the Bible is false.
Hi RAZD. You may be interested in a report of a sea-core off Portugal which compares pollen records from varying advance and retreat of forests etc with temperature signals and comparison with ice-cores 185,000 to 345,000 years ago. It is at http://www.geog.leeds.ac.uk/...e/academic/k.roucoux/EPSL.pdf
Hi NoNukes, I have seen a range of YECs. Some would have trouble understanding the science. Some like some medicos I know are perfectly able to understand but reject and/or ignore it. Some know the science but their faith trumps it. I have always, or at least for a long time, believed that Truth can stand scrutiny, and it doesn't hold up it is not Truth. But this is probably getting off topic.
Hi RAZD, You will not find well defined annual layers at 145,000 years. I am only a beginner in this but what I have seen so far is annual layers can be counted in ice cores for a few tens of thousands of years, confirmed by C14 and other markers such as O18. In deeper layers O18 and Be10 changes can be seen in Milankovitch cycles and allow estimation of greater ages. The ice cores can be compared with similar O18 changes in sea-cores and speleothems which can yield higher RM dates. Amounts of CO2 included in the ice cores also varies with other temperature markers. I read that the Vostok core was dated by 5 different methods with agreement within a few thousand years, but the methods were not detailed. If someone else can give more details that would be good.
Hi RAZD, The Greenland Ice core Counting Chronology 2005 is layer counted and unified for the DYE3, GRIP, and NGRIP cores and goes back 62,000 years. From carlsberggroup.com : Researchers studied 5,700 metres of ice from three Greenland cores. Annual layer counting involved 175,000 isotope measurements and more than a million measurements of chemical impurities in layers of ice less than 1 cm thick.
It makes you tired just reading about that much work, but shows the effort that is put into making the count as accurate as possible. A significant absence is evidence of the massive amount of volcanic activity that most Flood models involve.
The reported plateaus and rises in the C 14 curves compared to a straight line relation seems to me to be good evidence that true results are being recorded. One YEC I have blogged with asserts that 95% of RM dates are discarded because they are "wrong". I hope this does not cause Coyote to explode! At $595 a test, the idea of some researcher doing 100s of tests to be able to report a few "right" ones strains credulity a mite much!
Even leaving out RM dating, those YEC who hold to the idea of one Ice Age after the Flood will have their work cut out to explain all the isotope and other variations noted in the cores. When you start searching it is astounding to find the amount of work that is being done on the various cores. Lakes Ven, Meerfelder Maar, Soppensee, and Holzmaar for starters all provide support for C14 dating out to about 12,000 BP. Lago Grande di Monticchio in Italy has varves out to 76,000 BP - not continuous but inferred from interpolated sedimentation rates in the gaps, and Ar/Ar dates of included tephra.
Some woods can survive decades in water, as shown by piers, drowned trees in dams, or wooden ships. This of course does not invalidate dendrochronology. Most Flood models I have seen involve massive movements of water which would be expected to rip up trees and remove fallen wood, interrupting any tree-ring chronology.
To me, one of the things that helps to establish the validity of RC dating is the way the Lake Suigetsu dates vary from a straight line correlation with the varve count by a steady few percent. Either a real effect is being reported, or the researchers agreed to put in the variation to make it look as though they were measuring something. Also there are reported plateaus in RC dates at around 450-750 BC, and 8000-9000 BC. Why report this if you were fudging the results? Similarly, the study in the Cariaco Basin showed a rapid rise in C14 age from 34,000-41,000 BP with a 2000 increase in varves. Seems like real results are being reported, regardless of the many correlations with other methods ,