Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1

I suppose I should be more specific than I was, sorry about that. In a more tropical environment, I question whether the summer/winter cycles would exist the same way, and thus whether multiple rings could be put down in a single year. Increased oxygen levels and major atmospheric discrepancies - both of which are becoming increasingly evidenced for ancient earth - could also alter ring growth.I'm still unsure whether I agree with complete accuracy on Ussher's part, or an age to life on earth approaching 10,000 years rather than 6,000, but 5,000 year trees seem compatible with a Biblical age to life on earth. If a Flood occurred 5,000 years ago that would be about right for the Biblical genealogies, correct? Really, I would like to check it myself. I tend to distrust political parties and alleged authorities, preferring to check for myself. I check voting records rather than believe what politicians say. I check senate transcripts. I read the U.S. Budget for myself (color-coded here). I research U.S. history for myself which is why I'm so familiar with the founding fathers.My point is, ideally I'd just like to see the evidence for myself to assure myself that the trees were accurately matched. So that's where things really stand. Barring that I'd like to see some good evidence they were matched correctly. Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Which raises another question - does the Bible say the earth itself is young? Genesis 1:2 says the earth was empty and void. The solar day apparently didn't exist until the 4th day when the sun and planets were created so any length of time could've passed earlier.There's a reason I'm not debating the age of the earth but the age of life's beginning on earth specifically.

You are referring mainly to your Message #3, right? Many of your links don't work. The 1st gives just general info. The 2nd just gives a Table of Contents with links that require subscriber access. The 3rd doesn't work at all. Your main quote about "The Holocene part of the 14c calibration" appears entirely unreferenced. Your key links in Message 4 at the beginning don't work either.To verify claims dendrochronology can date back 10,000 years or more, I need to find some good sources for this claim. Here is one from BBC saying 5,000 years is possible:BBC - BonekickersHere is an example of problems found in Dendrochronology, where tree rings which had been matched were discovered to fit at multiple times:Radiocarbon DatingSome useful basic info on Dendrochronology I found here. It appears to be mostly pretty recent research, all done within the past 50 years or so.Radiocarbon Dating, Tree Rings Calibration
Page not found | M.A. in Art History PresentsAn informative quote is found here:

quote:

---

A further dilemma is the fact that two tree-ring series never agree completely, but they are similar to each other only to a certain degree. This similarity is quantified by two parameters, the ‘Gleichlufigkeitswert’ W (Eckstein & Bauch 1969) and the t-value (Baillie & Pilcher 1973). The question, how a weak similarity between two actually contemporaneous tree-ring patterns can be separated from a high coincidence similarity, is simple to answer: it is impossible. Nevertheless dendrochronology is a reliable dating method. Why? The always used basic principle for the building of tree-ring chronologies and their application for datings is called replication. It should be illustrated by an example (Baillie 1983): If two tree-ring patterns A and B are similar to each other and a third tree-ring series C is found, which is similar to A, then C must be similar also to B at the same position; all further tree-ring patterns, which are similar to A, must be similar to B and C, etc. The reliability of a dendrochronological dating is based on these repeated agreements and mutual controls during the building of a chronology and, as much as possible, with each dating.

---

http://www.bfafh.de/inst4/42/dendro1.htm#kap3.3

I just noticed CreationWiki has a reply to a TalkOrigins article on the subject of missing rings:Dendrochronology is suspect because 2 or more rings can grow per year - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science(Talk.Origins)
CB501: Multiple tree rings per yearIt appears there are multiple potential issues with Dendrochronology that may explain why it isn't more publicly accepted (Googling the term gets just 441,000 results - by comparison a Google of 'Jzyehoshua gets 34,900 results).1. Two or more tree rings can grow each year.
2. Missing tree rings account for 5-20% (accounts differ) of a tree's rings.
3. Tree rings can match one another 99% + statistically for different periods centuries apart.Radiocarbon DatingEdited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

One of the best Creationist articles on the subject is at Answers in Genesis. It mostly agrees that Dendrochronology appears well cross-matched but does offer one alternative hypothesis on time-staggered repeat disturbances. Biblical Chronology 8,000-Year Bristlecone Pine Ring Chronology | Answers in Genesis There's a decent paper here as well questioning whether weaknesses in the tree ring ladder may exist where dependence is on a few trees.http://www.thischristianjourney.com/...es/Dating_Methods.htmA guide to Dendrochronological analysis is here:http://dendro.cornell.edu/manuals/howto-english.pdfThere's some interesting info here also:http://anthro.palomar.edu/time/time_4.htmIt sounds like ring growths can alter based on a number of factors though, including forest density and even whether the tree grew on a slope, resulting in different ring densities in different parts of the tree.

I ran a Google News search to see what major news sources had to say on the subject (search here - Click News on left sidebar instead of 'Everything') and came across something VERY interesting.Turns out Bristlecones have been growing very rapidly in California and Nevada for the past 50 years (basically the same time Dendrochronology's been around) so they assume the rates sped up recently, rather than considering that their ancient dates for the past could be wrong:

quote:

---

We may think of climate change killing off species or destroying habitat. Now, a twist: Tree researchers studying bristlecone pines in California and Nevada have found those trees growing over the last 50 years at a faster rate than at any other period in the last 3,600 years. They were looking at trees at an elevation of almost 12,000 feet at the upper tree line...

​

Prof. HUGHES: In the last few decades, they're getting fatter rings than they've had for about 3,600 years. This is a very unusual event. It exists only in the trees near their upper limit, not in the trees just a few hundred feet lower down the mountain. So the mystery was why on earth is this happening?

​

BLOCK: And how have you resolved that mystery, or have you?

​

Prof. HUGHES: It was early a thought, 20 or so years ago, that this was probably mainly the result of there being more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Our results concerning the pattern of where the trees are going faster and where they are not is not consistent with that explanation, and that leads us to look for another explanation. The most likely one is the increase in temperature that has taken place over the 20th century for whatever reason, and we've got some evidence that strongly suggests that that's a big part of the story.

---

Higher Temperatures May Be Behind Pine Growth : NPRIt's also mentioned here:Agen338 : Olympus Situs Judi Slot Online Gacor Hari Ini Di IndonesiaI also found this showing a case where trees which are supposed to be 1,000 years old were dated at younger ages:The millennium-old olive trees of the Iberian Peninsula are younger than expected | Science CodexEdited by Jzyehoshua, : doesn't show News search for some reason

Appreciate the Science Direct article - it's the most concrete piece of evidence I've seen relating to Dendrochronology yet. I went to the radiocarbon calibration program mentioned there (sonny apache server), and found this:http://www.radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/...airbanks0805.pdfIt looks like they're going primarily off Uranium-Uranium and Uranium-Thorium dating? I see more info is found on the first source given here:http://www.radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/.../radiocarbon.htmThe paper is:http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2007_Chiu.pdfApparently the names given on the previous table are of islands, Kiritimati, Barbados, etc., where coral was sampled at, per this quote on page 21:

quote:

---

Atmospheric D14C values in this study were computed based on Eq. (1) using paired 230 Th/234U/238U and 14C dates obtained from fossil corals from Kiritimati, Barbados, Araki and Santo Islands (Fairbanks et al., 2005) (Supplementary Appendix A; Fig. 2). Detailed reservoir age determination is described in Fairbanks et al. (2005). The uncertainty of our 14C reservoir correction is not included in the following error analysis of D14C, but is speculated to vary by less than 7100 years (see sonny apache server for a global map of surface ocean reservoir ages), which is not significant in D14C estimates older than 30,000 years BP.

---

This also shows an area of speculation however, since reservoir age correction is "speculated to vary by less than 7100 years". Apparently they made a correction which isn't included in the error analysis and this is assumed to be correct because of 'speculation'.Page 22 appears to show an inconsistency in the data regarding atmospheric Carbon 14 levels incompatible with "model predictions" unless "carbon cycle parameters are adjusted to extreme parameters":

quote:

---

The atmospheric D14C record beyond 30,000 years BP has been an intriguing topic for the following reasons. Different archives do not exhibit the same D14C variations beyond 30,000 years BP, and there is no commonly accepted explanation for the high atmospheric D14C values (Beck et al., 2001; Hughen et al., 2004) recorded in most archives. Beck et al. (2001) and Hughen et al. (2004) used box models to try to interpret their D14C records from a Bahamian speleothem and sediment cores from the Cariaco Basin, respectively. These authors were unable to generate atmospheric D14C larger than 400 per mil in model simulations based on paleointensity-calculated 14C production and fixed or modern carbon cycle conditions (see model ‘‘A’’ in Beck et al., 2001 and model ‘‘a’’ in Hughen et al., 2004). Although our coral D14C estimates are based on high-precision and high-accuracy dating methods (Mortlock et al., 2005; Fairbanks et al., 2005), our record also yields D14C values as high as 800 per mil between 35,000 to 40,000 years BP (Fig. 4). A D14C value of 800 per mil is much larger than model predictions allow unless the carbon cycle parameters are adjusted to extreme values.

​

For example, Beck et al. (2001) model (C) manages to produce D14C values of about 600—800 per mil during 45,000 to 35,000 years BP, but only when the carbonate sedimentation rate is reduced to 12% of the modern value until 25,000 years BP and allowed to gradually be increased and resumed at 11,000 years BP. None of Hughen et al. (2004)’s model results could produce D14C values of 800 per mil even after a 50% reduction in surface-deep ocean exchange rate and 90% reduction of carbon flux into shallow marine carbonate sediments. Thus, the discrepancies between measured D14C and modeled D14C remained unresolved.

---

This is addressed later on pg. 26 as "difficult to explain by 14C production" and "there is sufficient uncertainty, on the order of several percent, to warrant re-measurement of the 14C half-life".

quote:

---

The long-term trend in D14C culminating in extremely high D14C values observed around 40,000 years BP (Fig. 2) (Beck et al., 2001; Hughen et al., 2004; Fairbanks et al.,2005) is difficult to explain by 14C production and various carbon cycle scenarios according to Beck et al. (2001) and Hughen et al. (2004). More intriguingly, the coral radiocarbon calibration curve of Fairbanks et al. (2005) seems strikingly linearover the entire 50,000 year time span, the differences between the paired coral 14C ages and the 230Th/234U/238U ages increase proportionately with time. The ‘‘selection’’ of the 14C half-life value is one parameter that would create a ‘‘proportional offset’’ between the calendar age and the 14C age and leads us to an analysis of the accuracy of the Godwin (1962) 14C half-life, 5730740 years. In the following section, we review the potential sources of error in computing the Godwin (1962) 14C halflife. We conclude that there is sufficient uncertainty, on the order of several percent, to warrant re-measurement of the 14C half-life using ion counting and other simplified, independent methods such as the calorimetry technique until concordant results are obtained.

---

As seen on pages 30-33, this led to a re-examination by the authors of the 14C half-life to try and make their data consistent, reconfiguring what they believe the half-life of Carbon 14 to be (pg. 33). No problem though, they just had to revise the half-life from 5,730 years to 6,030 years to make the results consistent - not a problem, right?

quote:

---

Having now evaluated the methods and related issues relevant to accurate determination of 14C half-life, we test the sensitivity on the calculation of D14C values to the halflife value. If the calorimetry half-life of 6030 years (Jenks and Sweeton, 1952) instead of the consensus half-life of 5730 years (Godwin, 1962) is selected for the computation of our coral D14C values (Eq. (1)), the recalculated D14C 6030 seem entirely consistent with the Beck et al. (2001) model (A) prediction in which mainly the production controls modeled D14C (Fig. 13). Although a correction of 14C halflife would affect the decay term in carbon box models as well, we have demonstrated the potential to reconcile the discrepancy between modeled D14C values and the coral D14C values using the reported calorimetry determined half-life of 6030 years. However, carbon box models are crude by design and cannot adequately reproduce natural variability of CO2, and so the models cannot serve as a confirmation for the ‘‘6030 years’’ half-life. New concordant 14C half-life measurements via calorimetry and modern counting techniques are needed.

---

The most recent paper on the data appears to be showing a number of uncertainties and causes for concern about the half-life measurements and prior atmospheric isotope levels of carbon 14. It only achieved consistent results by completely revamping the Carbon 14 half-life from conventional theory (pg. 34):

quote:

---

An under-estimate of the 14C half-life is a possible explanation for excessively elevated D14C values. If the calorimetry estimated 14C half-life, 6030 years, is validated by new half-life measurements, it could explain much of the linear component of the radiocarbon calibration curves and the discrepancy between D14C values derived from corals and modeled D14C values based on paleointensity combined with a range of carbon cycle scenarios. We conclude that the variation in paleointensity and a possible offset in the absolute value of 14C half-life together control the overall shape and amplitude in the D14C record for the past 50,000 years. A re-determination of the 14C half-life is urgently needed for radiocarbon-based research. After the 14C half-life is accurately measured and replicated by multiple techniques, our coral data will provide an opportunity to examine subtler carbon cycle influences on the younger half of the D14C record.

---

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : adding detailEdited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : fixed spacing of quotes

So in summary, your major source for this, the group doing all the research, shows as their top new source that the only way they could effectively combine Carbon 14 data with coral dates was to arbitrarily change the Carbon 14 half-life from 5730 to 6030 years, which over a 30,000 year period would mean a discrepancy of about 1,500 years. Rather than showing consistency it shows they still don't think the Carbon 14 half-life is certain yet and acknowledge it needs to be changed for their data to be presented as fact. Atmospheric Carbon 14 levels were inconsistent with the data and required the new speculation.I wonder what else I will find out if I check their other sources?Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

Here's an analysis of their 2nd source provided (seen at bottom, Publications):http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/pubs/2006aChiu.pdfThe lead paragraph states the following:

quote:

---

230Th / 234U / 238U dating of fossil corals by mass spectrometry is remarkably precise, but some samples exposed to freshwater over thousands of years may gain and/or lose uranium and/or thorium and consequently yield inaccurate ages. Although a d234Uinitial value equivalent to modern seawater and modern corals has been an effective quality control criterion, for samples exposed to freshwater but having d234Uinitial values indistinguishable from modern seawater and modern corals, there remains a need for additional age validation in the most demanding applications such as the 14C calibration (Fairbanks et al., 2005. Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th / 234U / 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals. Quaternary Science Reviews 24(16—17), 1781—1796). In this paper we enhance screening criteria for fossil corals older than 30,000 years BP in the Fairbanks0805 radiocarbon calibration data set (Fairbanks et al., 2005) by measuring redundant 230Th / 234U / 238U and 231Pa / 235U dates via multi-collector magnetic sector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry (MC-MS-ICPMS) using techniques described in Mortlock et al. (2005. 230Th / 234U / 238U and 231Pa / 235U ages from a single fossil coral fragment by multi-collector magnetic-sector inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 69(3), 649—657.). In our present study, we regard paired 231Pa / 235U and 230Th / 234U / 238U ages concordant when the 231Pa / 235U age (72s) overlaps with the associated 230Th / 234U/ 238U age (72s). Out of a representative set of 11 Fairbanks0805 (Fairbanks et al., 2005) radiocarbon calibration coral samples re-measured in this study, nine passed this rigorous check on the accuracy of their 230Th / 234U/ 238U ages. The concordancy observed between 230Th / 234U / 238U and 231Pa / 235U dates provides convincing evidence to support closed system behavior of these fossil corals and validation of their 230Th / 234U / 238U dates for radiocarbon calibration and D14C reconstruction.

---

Well, so much for wondering if the last paper was a fluke. It seems the more I look into this the sketchier the research looks. Right away the article acknowledges freshwater throws off carbon dating by influencing thorium/uranium levels and repeats that "there remains a need for additional age validation in the most demanding applications such as the 14C calibration", meaning their dates won't work without revising conventional 14C half-life values - again. So if freshwater throws off dates considerably, I wonder what a global Flood (where all water gets mixed together) would do to them?In reading the 1st paragraph, I note that atmospheric levels of Carbon 14 are easily altered by changes in the solar magnetic field and geomagnetic field intensity, and therefore calibrations must be made to account for such decay alterations. It seems this confidence that isotope decay rates remain generally constant doesn't get as much mention when scientists are conversing among themselves in formal papers.

quote:

---

The records of atmospheric 14C concentrations contain important information about the Earth’s history (Libby, 1955; Stuiver and Quay, 1980; Damon, 1988; Bard et al., 1990a; Edwards et al., 1993). Fluctuations in atmospheric 14C are controlled by changes in the solar magnetic field (de Vries, 1959; Stuiver and Quay, 1980), in the geomagnetic field intensity (Sternberg and Damon, 1992; Bard et al., 1990a; Guyodo and Valet, 1999; Laj et al., 2000; Laj et al., 2002), and in the carbon cycling (Siegenthaler et al., 1980; Edwards et al., 1993; Hughen et al., 2000), and these factors operate on different time scales. As a result of these geophysical and geochemical processes, the radiocarbon age of an ancient sample is not equivalent to the calendar age and the radiocarbon chronometer must be calibrated. The most precise and accurate calibration can be achieved when both 14C ages and calendar ages are obtained from the same archived sample (Stuiver and Pearson, 1986; Fairbanks et al., 2005).

---

I continue reading (pg. 2432), expecting to see evidence of this 'consistency' that has you all so enthralled with the theory, and do not see it. The more I read, the sketchier this stuff looks. Now they're saying that the dates start getting really inconsistent when cross-matching multiple dating methods past 13,000 years, and especially bad past 24,000. Apparently there are "significant dating inaccuracies or weak assumptions in more than one of these studies". Also disturbing is that the studies showing these problems "have not been widely adopted for radiocarbon calibration purposes" suggesting previous scientists were just cherry-picking, picking and choosing the studies that supported the conclusion they wanted when recalibrating.

quote:

---

The various archives of atmospheric 14C content depart from one another beyond 13,000 years BP and depart dramatically beyond 24,000 years BP (Fig. 1), suggesting significant dating inaccuracies or weak assumptions in more than one of these studies (van der Plicht et al., 2004). Despite the quantity and quality of the radiometric measurements, most of these prior radiocarbon calibration or radiocarbon comparison attempts have not been widely adopted for radiocarbon calibration purposes (Reimer et al., 2004; van der Plicht et al., 2004) mainly because of uncertainties in the sample quality and geochemical history. The IntCal04 group formally concluded (Reimer et al., 2004; van der Plicht et al., 2004) that the discrepancies between competing radiocarbon calibration data sets older than 26,000 years BP were too large and the sources of these differences too uncertain that they were unsuitable for inclusion in the IntCal04 radiocarbon calibration curve. Instead, IntCal04 published an updated data ‘‘comparison curve’’ entitled NOTCal04 (van der Plicht et al., 2004).

---

I notice that for as chaotic as Figure 1 looks, it would be even more so had they not corrected their fossil corals for their new Carbon 14 half-life assumption. It makes it a little concerning that they can just revise the C14 half-life to make results consistent and then have the cross-matching portrayed as "consistent" like it is on this forum. In Figure 1's note it states,

quote:

---

Solid red circles represent fossil corals from Kiritimati, Barbados and Araki Island (Fairbanks et al, 2005; this study). All U-series dated coral archives were corrected using the most recent estimates of the 230Th and 234U half-lives (Cheng et al., 2000) in this figure.

---

It appears corals are especially desirable for cross-checking dendrochronology because (a) Uranium and Thorium levels can be accurately measured (so does that mean other sources can't?), (b) errors are easily identified and isolated, and (c) they are easy to sample from quantities worldwide.

quote:

---

Fossil corals may be regarded as one of the best archives for providing absolute chronology and extending 14C calibration beyond that obtained with tree rings (i.e. beyond 12,400 years BP) (Bard et al., 1990a; Cutler et al., 2004; Reimer et al., 2004; Hughen et al., 2004; Fairbanks et al., 2005). One of the greatest advantages to using fossil corals for radiocarbon calibration is that both 14C and 230Th / 234U / 238U ages can be measured accurately and precisely, and the corresponding errors are independent and have known uncertainties. Another advantage to corals is the fact that large samples may be collected from many tropical and subtropical locations worldwide and can be analyzed by independent laboratories using a range of processing procedures and instrumentation types for radiocarbon calibration validation.

---

On pg. 2433 it acknowledges freshwater contamination results in an "open system" rather than closed, raising a serious question mark regarding a key principle upon which radiometric dating rests.

quote:

---

While age dating of fossil corals by mass spectrometry is remarkably precise, a potential shortcoming of 230 Th/ 234U / 238U dating in samples older than 30,000 years BP is that corals may have been exposed to fresh water during sea level low stands. Only coral samples that grew at paleo-water depths deeper than 120 m remained in seawater during the subsequent glacial sea level lowstand (Fairbanks 1989; Peltier and Fairbanks, 2005). Exposure to the vados (rainwater percolating zone) and phreatic lens (fresh water table) may lead to gain and/or loss of U and/or Th, changing the [230 Th/ 234 U] activity ratio in the samples and thus compromising the accuracy of age determinations (Bender et al., 1979; Edwards et al., 1987; Hamelin et al., 1991; Gallup et al., 1994). Such open system behavior of samples cannot be easily identified but is typically recognized by the departure from the initial [234U / 238U] activity ratio (denoted as d234Uinitial) of a coral from the modern seawater value (Bender et al., 1979; Edwards, 1988; Hamelin et al., 1991; Henderson et al., 1993; Thompson et al., 2003; Scholz et al., 2004; Mey et al., 2005).

---

It's mentioned still on pg. 2433 how diagenetic calcite specifically is what's causing Carbon 14 accuracy problems from freshwater contamination:

quote:

---

Samples are screened for calcite by XRD at <0.2% detection level (Chiu et al., 2005). This is a particularly important screening step for outcrop coral samples which have been exposed to freshwater and have the potential of being contaminated with diagenetic calcite, thereby compromising the accuracy of the 14C age.

---

I'm not really sure I understand the whole concept of "spiking samples" with Uranium and Thorium to "approximate a target ratio". The fact that the result is "some additional quantity of its daughter product, 233U, may be added" worries me a little they could be inflating the ages slightly through adding additional Uranium like this. It's a bit hard to tell from the wording how much alteration such addition causes.

quote:

---

The chemical procedure used to separate U, Th, and Pa in fossil coral is briefly described in this section although a more detailed description and documentation can be found in Mortlock et al. (2005). A mixed 233U—229 Th spike was added to the sample to approximate a target ratio of 229Th / 230Th equal to 10 and 233Pa spike was added to approximate a target ratio of 233Pa / 231Pa equal to 2. For corals in the age range of 30,000—55,000 years BP, about 1.5 ng 233U and about 0.5—1 pg of 233Pa is added as spike. Since the spiking of samples with 233Pa may take place hours to days following its purification, some additional quantity of its daughter product, 233U, may be added. Although the additional contribution to the 233U spike from 233Pa decay represents at most about 0.1% of the total, a correction is made to the isotope dilution calculation for total uranium.

---

On pages 2434-2435 it's mentioned finally why freshwater contamination was occurring.

quote:

---

230 Th/ 234U / 238U and 231Pa / 235 U ages were obtained on selected fossil corals collected at two locations: Barbados and Araki Island. U-series dates from these samples were previously reported in Fairbanks et al. (2005) as part of the radiocarbon calibration data set. The Barbados sea level record (Fairbanks, 1989, 1990; Peltier and Fairbanks, 2005) indicates that the Barbados corals re-measured in this study were subaerially exposed to freshwater for about 15,000 years while the Araki samples were subaerially exposed nearly continuously due to the high uplift rate of Araki Island.

---

Seen on pg. 2435, freshwater contamination was the major reason samples were excluded, and resulted in rejecting 84 of the 145 fossil Araki corals (testing just 61).

quote:

---

Since our primary justification for redundant
231Pa / 235U ages is for validation of the 230 Th / 234 U / 238U ages in samples which can also be radiocarbon dated, we limited our selection of Araki fossil corals to only specimens found to contain <0.2% calcite and which were expected to fall within the
age range of radiocarbon dating. Sample ARA04-58E was chosen as a test of the 231Pa / 235U methodology. Visual inspection of fossil coral specimens in the field can generally screen those samples with more than 1% calcite. For general reference, 61 out of 145 fossil Araki corals analyzed by XRD methods (Chiu et al., 2005) were found to contain <0.2% calcite.

---

Much of the testing involved a new test for Protactinium which is surrounded by uncertainty (see pg. 2434 for more on that). One major outlier is not even mentioned while 3 of the other 12 results were also excluded though not as extremely inconsistent. It does raise the question, however, of whether this is cherry-picking and showing just the results that are "concordant"; consistent, with the desired conclusion.

quote:

---

The uncertainty of a sample [231Pa / 235U] activity ratio inherits the uncertainty from both the measured 233Pa / 231Pa and233U / 238U ratios and from the uncertainty in the concentration of the 233Pa spike. Therefore, we estimated the overall external precision of the measured sample [231Pa / 235U] activity ratio to be equal to the combined uncertainty in both the sample and standard 231Pa / 235U measured activity ratios. The averaged combined uncertainty in the [231Pa / 235U] activity ratio in these 12 samples is about 1.5% (2 RSD) and corresponds to a relative age uncertainty of about 72%. We shall regard a paired 231Pa / 235U age and 230Th / 234U / 238U age to be concordant when the analytical error in [231Pa / 235U] is p2% (2 RSD) and the 231Pa / 235U age (72s) overlaps the associated 230Th / 234U / 238U age (72s). One replicate 231Pa / 235U age (RGF12-28-6 [a]) clearly fails the concordancy test and is regarded as an outlier and is excluded from later discussion. Three samples have ages that fall only slightly outside of the corresponding 230Th / 234U / 238U age at 2s (Fig. 2 and 3) but must be designated discordant, even though the d234Uinitial values measured in these samples do not suggest open system behavior. The remaining nine samples have 231Pa / 235U ages that are concordant with the 230Th / 234U / 238U ages.

---

The study's findings contradicted another study which found Protactinium declined over time:

quote:

---

Our results appear to be in contrast to those reported using another MC-MS-ICPMS system (Finnigan Neptune), where it was observed that the measured 231/233 ratio in a Pa solution was found to decrease with time as 233Pa decayed to 233U (Regelous et al., 2004). The authors suspected the decrease in the ratio was due to more efficient ionization of U compared to Pa in the plasma source. The effect precluded the possibility of long-term storage of Pa fractions after the final chemical separation (Regelous et al., 2004).

---

In the Discussion section, the authors on pg. 2435 try to explain away the serious questions of this being an open system, saying the remaining 9 samples are consistent with a closed system - even though they admitted earlier many other samples from the same area were excluded for freshwater/calcite contamination resulting in open systems. Apparently these 9 samples were supposed to have been closed systems, nonetheless.As a side note, they mention theory at the end of just why elevated uranium levels result from open system contamination. Perhaps a global Flood mixing fresh water with salt water could be an explanation?

quote:

---

The d234Uinitial values obtained from the Pa—Th—U method in the twelve samples reported here ranged from 140 to 144 (Table 3) and fall within the range of d234Uinitial reported for other concordant 230Th / 234U / 238U and 231Pa / 235U dated samples in this age range (Cutler et al., 2004; Fairbanks et al., 2005) and within the range of d234Uinitial reported for modern corals (Delanghe et al., 2002). In contrast, open system corals are typically characterized by elevated d234Uinitial, and open system corals of approximately the same age generally plot as positive trends on [230Th / 238U] activity versus d234U measured (or [234U / 238U] activity) diagrams (Hamelin et al., 1991; Gallup et al., 1994; Thompson et al., 2003; Scholz et al., 2004; Mey et al., 2005). Alpha recoil addition of 234U (Villemant and Feuillet, 2003; Thompson et al., 2003) has been proposed to explain the anomalous ages and elevated d234Uinitial, but evidence from Holocene and last interglacial corals from the Gulf of Aqaba (Scholz et al., 2004) and marine isotope stage 3 Barbados corals (Mey et al., 2005) indicate that adsorption and not alpha recoil is probably responsible for the elevated d234Uinitial values generally characteristic of open system samples.

---

The charts on pages 2437 to 2438 look very nice and neat, but again, this appears to be because they removed inconsistent results including one major outlier.On pg. 2438, the authors speak of how consistent the results are, and how 9 reliable samples have been found, but mention that 2 will be excluded from future calibrations. Again, this raises the question of why they are keeping only the reliable results they want and removing the ones that are even slightly undesirable. To me at least, this looks suspiciously like cherry-picking, however fancy the terminology might be. They just completely removed the major outlier mentioned on pg. 2435 and the "Three samples [that] have ages that fall only slightly outside of the corresponding 230Th / 234U / 238U age at 2s (Fig. 2 and 3) but must be designated discordant, even though the d234Uinitial values measured in these samples do not suggest open system behavior."

quote:

---

The redating of 11 representative samples in our radiocarbon calibration curve for the time interval spanning 30,000 years BP to 50,000 years BP using the Pa—Th—U method confirms the accuracy of the coral calibration curve (sonny apache server) over this time interval where other archives yield disparate results (Fig. 1). By virtue of the redundant dating, nine calibration samples have been elevated from Categories IV to III (Fairbanks et al., 2005) and two samples are excluded from future versions of our radiocarbon calibration (e.g. Fairbanks0406).

---

Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

quote:

---

As you are reading, don't forget that the calibration curves are designed to account for atmospheric fluctuations. It has been know for many years that the levels of C14 in the atmosphere vary due to changes in the sun's output and the earth's magnetic field, etc. Those changes that cause the atmospheric levels to vary by several percent, with the maximum around 10%.

​

This is the reason for comparison of raw C14 ages with items of known age, such as tree rings, corals, and glacial varves. Once the differences due to atmospheric fluctuation are known, the curve allows unknown samples to be corrected or "calibrated" to produce accurate dates.

---

Still, the sheer amount of samples removed from the study for freshwater, open system contamination is a bit eye-opening. 84 of the 145 samples were removed for this contamination, 57.9%. And when they'd whittled down to 13 samples, they removed one for being a major outlier and 3 others for being minor outliers. I understand accounting for fluctuations, but throwing out almost your entire sample, whatever is "discordant" and doesn't agree with the result you want, strikes me as somewhat poor methodology.Supposedly there were supposed to be 61 samples left, even after tossing out over half for open system contamination (pg. 2435). And as best I could tell by the end, maybe I'm wrong - most of those just ended up disappearing and didn't get included in the results or final tally. Even if that wasn't the case, throwing out 4 of the 13 samples would be itself disturbing.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

It's pretty easy to explain why there are "correlations" between the methodologies - because the biased Climategate scientists reconstructing the data did so to achieve the conclusions they wanted. To quote just a few of the emails sourced here:Climategate emails - CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science-They eliminated negative correlations and admitted problems exist with all methods:"We actually eliminate records with negative correlations (this is mentioned breifly in the GRL article,), and we investigated a variety of weighting schemes to assure the basic robustness of the composite--but I certainly endorse your broader point here. Many of these records have some significant uncertainties or possible sources of bias, and this isn't the place to get into that. [Michael Mann]... It was a majority decision to leave the Mann and Jones 2000-year series in the Figure 1 (as it was to remove the Briffa and Osborn tree-ring based one) , and the details of the logic used to derive the Mann and Jones series is to be found in the (cited) text of their paper. Signing on to this letter , in my mind. implies agreement with the text and not individual endorsement of all curves by each author. I too have expressed my concern to Phil (and Ray) over the logic that you leave all series you want in but just weight them according to some (sometimes low) correlation (in this case based on decadal values). I also believe some of the series that make up the Chinese record are dubious or obscure , but the same is true of other records Mann and Jones have used (e.g. how do you handle a series in New Zealand that has a -0.25 correlation?) . Further serious problems are still (see my and Tim's Science comment on the Mann 1999 paper) lurking with the correction applied to the Western US tree-ring PC amplitude series used (and shown in Figure 2). There are problems (and limitations ) with ALL series used. At this stage , singling out individual records for added (and unavoidably cursory added description) is not practical. [Keith Briffa]"-They admitted ice cores are "no good" and Mann's work is poor, to put it mildly:"[Met Office/Hadley's Simon Tett] 1) Didn't see a justification for use of tree-rings and not using ice cores -- the obvious one is that ice cores are no good -- see Jones et al, 1998. 2) No justification for regional reconstructions rather than what Mann et al did (I don't think we can say we didn't do Mann et al because we think it is crap!)"-They admitted all proxies have potential problems including ice cores and corals:"The underlying assumption of our own work has always been that each of the proxies have their own potential problems, and multiproxy approaches are probably the most robust. I don’t have a particular axe to grind about any particular proxy, and recognize that there are some pretty serious potential problems with all proxies, including ice core delta o18 (as you’re aware, these are not clean paleotemperature proxies at all), and Sr/Ca or o18 from corals. There is a good discussion of the strengths and weaknesses in all of the proxies in Jones and Mann (2004): Jones, P.D., Mann, M.E., Climate Over Past Millennia, Reviews of Geophysics, 42, RG2002, doi: 10.1029/2003RG000143, 2004. Agreed completely on value of multiproxy. And yes, a lot of my earlier work was on figuring out how much of the isotopic signal in ice cores is temperature and not other things. The reassuring result was that all the big stuff is temperature, although with a rather bizarrely unexpected calibration. Of the little stuff, stack several cores and you get up toward order of half of the variance being temperature with the rest left for something else. The devil is in the details of when big meets little, as well as what calibration to use."-They spoke of the uncertainty in ice core dating caused by a "fudge factor":"In any simple global formula, there should be at least two clearly identifiable sources of uncertainty. One is the sensitivity (d(melt)/dT) and the other is the total available ice. In the TAR, the latter never comes into it in their analysis (i.e., the 'derivation' of the GSIC formula) -- but my point is that it *does* come in by accident due to the quadratic fudge factor. The total volume range is 5-32cm, which is, at the very least, inconsistent with other material in the chapter (see below). 5cm is clearly utterly ridiculous.[Tom Wigley, 2004] "-They spoke about the "trick" to hide negative information for dendrochronology:"Keith, I now found the time to read the paper more carefully, together with the figures. I think except of my basic critics (no regard of replication) the results are astonishing good. The trick to substract pdsi-values and to calculate significance in comparison to the previous year does pretty nice hide the information how many of the negative signature years in the 20th century had really been dry years - at least in 1956 the opposite is true. However astonishing interesting results, especially for me the 3-4 years ring widt suppressions following cold winters which you explain by climatic reasons and which I see as medium term reaction on damage in cold winters. So - from my side no hints for changes in the hurry (this week I am overbusy with an everyday course in Dendrochronology for students) but the hope that we will one day find the time to repeat the study a bit more carefully. Cheers Hubert Dr. Hanns Hubert Leuschner Univ. Goettingen -Labor f. Dendrochronologie u. Dendroklimatologie- Von-Siebold-Str. 3a D-37075 Goettingen Phone: +49-551-3912153"-They admitted the tree ring reconstructions are in trouble along with dendrochronology:".. I do think that if Richard is suspect, dendro has a real problem [overpeck] ""I fear that the tree-ring reconstructions really are in bad shape, and that the IPCC and chapter 6 have a big problem coming up. I'll be in the office tomorrow if you want to call--814???--but I want to notify Susan soon.--Richard"- They used biased data and selected data that would show only what they wanted:"ANOTHER THING THAT IS A REAL ISSUE IS SHOWING SOME OF THE TREE-RING DATA FOR THE PERIOD AFTER 1950. BASED ON THE LITERATURE, WE KNOW THESE ARE BIASED - RIGHT? SO SHOULD WE SAY THAT'S THE REASON THEY ARE NOT SHOWN? OF COURSE, IF WE ONLY PLOT THE FIG FROM CA 800 TO 1400 AD, IT WOULD DO WHAT WE WANT, FOCUS ON THE MWP ONLY [overpeck]"- They admitted the tree ring record doesn't show the recent warming and causes trouble for the paleo record:"It sounded like it is an embarrassment to the tree ring community that their indicator does not seem to be responding to the pronounced warming of the past 50 years. Ed Cook of the Lamont Tree-Ring Lab tells me that there is some speculation that stratospheric ozone depletion may have affected the trees, in which case the pre-1950 record is OK. But alternatively, he says it is possible that the trees have exceeded the linear part of their temperature-sensitive range, and they no longer are stimulated by temperature. In this case there is trouble for the paleo record. Kieth Briffa first documented this late 20th century loss of response.Personally, I think that the tree ring records should be able to reproduce the instrumental record, as a first test of the validity of this proxy. To me it casts doubt on the integrity of this proxy that it fails this test.Sincerely, Jeff [Severinghaus]"Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.Edited by Jzyehoshua, : No reason given.

As seen from the other emails, they used a variety of other dishonest tactics too. They had those with opposing views targeted for firing. They helped one another gain promotions. They tried to avoid the Freedom of Information Act by conspiring with members of the UEA and Department of Energy, deleting emails, and lobbying to remove their research activities from FOIA.They cherry-picked data that would prove the conclusions they wanted:"Phil, Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly explain the 1940s warming blip. If you look at the attached plot you will see that the land also shows the 1940s blip (as I'm sure you know). So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC, then this would be significant for the global mean -- but we'd still have to explain the land blip. I've chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are 1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips -- higher sensitivity plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from. Removing ENSO does not affect this. It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip, but we are still left with "why the blip". [Tom Wigley, to Phil Jones and Ben Santer]""With 243 stations needing adjustments, and 728 used, I presume the other 485 were considered to be OK without adjustment.[Phil Jones]""The odd periods are the 1920s and the period from 1940-60. For the latter if the SSTs were adjusted they would look much better. The 1900s, 1910s for some reason look amazingly good.""That the data are so unreliable between the 30s and 60s means we don't know for sure what happened in terms of global-mean temperatures during that period. In fact, if you blank out the data from the 30s to the 60s, you can actually imagine the globe warming weakly but continuously during that period... Hence, the only real evidence we have of a midcentury about-turn in global warming comes from the land data.""Mike, Good. I doubt if any of them will notice. Cheers Phil At 16:44 27/03/2008, you wrote:Hi Phil, [1]Temperature data (HadCRUT, CRUTEM,, HadCRUT5, CRUTEM5) Climatic Research Unit global temperature now has the final year removed if incomplete. Batten hatches and prepare for Skeptix! Mike ""Sorry for sounding a bit testy here. I've been fielding a whole raft of questions, comments, and criticisms from Mike Mann, Tom Crowley, and Malcolm Hughes. Some of them useful, many of them tiresome or besides the point. I never wanted to get involved in this quixotic game of producing the next great NH temperature reconstruction because of the professional politics and sensitivities involved...I should also say that the amount of ignorance about tree rings in the global change/paleo/modeling community is staggering given what has been published. Like it or not, they simply don't read our papers.).... This all reinforces my determination to leave this NH/global temperature reconstruction junk behind me once I get this paper submitted. It's not worth the aggravation. [Ed Cook]"

The reason there are correlations, in other words, is that the scientists involved reconstructed them to have correlations.