|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 48 (9216 total) |
| |
KING IYK | |
Total: 920,692 Year: 1,014/6,935 Month: 295/719 Week: 83/204 Day: 3/12 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
My recent post Message 40 summarizes my arguments to date, and provides an outline for future posts covering these issues in greater detail.
Message 41 is the first of these posts, and it provides the basic methods of dendrochronology, especially those that sort out annual rings from false and missing rings. In my post 27 I clearly agreed that Irish Oak, German Oak and some Bristlecone Pine trees show annual rings and are not in precipitation sensitive environments. So I fail to see why you keep emphasizing a point that we are in agreement about. ... For the simple reasons that :
Curiously, if you now accept the Irish and German chronologies, then your original "main problem" Message 3 ...
My main problem with carbon dating is its calibration against tree ring chronology, which I feel is unreliable due to assumptions about the annual nature of rings. ... ... is fully answered. This correlation is the same (within 99.5%) for all three chronologies, and you can see it here: 404 Page not found (9)
quote: This curve can certainly be used to calibrate the raw 14C age calculation to account for variations in the 14C atmospheric concentrations that were in effect at each age and obtain dates closer to accurate calendar dates (generally younger than the raw 14C dates):
So now we can calculate what No was for each age: Note that it is not the decay rate that is calibrated by the dendrochronology (that is determined in the lab), but the proportion of 14C/12C in the atmosphere at the time the sample grew (used atmospheric carbon).
... I asked you to show proof that specifically the living ancient White Mountain Bristlecone Pines also agree with the short term chronology (eg 1816). Could you kindly provide me with a link or post some evidence. This is my second request, my first request was in post 27. That will be covered in the post on Bristlecone Pines, but until then you can consider that the consilience of the Bristlecone Pine chronology to the Irish Oak chronology and the German Oak and Pine chronology is "proof" (very high consilience shows very high confidence in the results) that it is accurate and precise, not just to 1816 but for the total length of the chronology, over 8,000 years. Which, of course, is why I keep repeating the information on all three dendrochronologies. Because to challenge Bristlecone Pine accuracy you then need to explain the consilience with the other two chronologies. These chronologies also show that the earth is at least 12,000 years old as a minimum, and that there was no interruption in the tree growth by any catastrophic event during that period. Meanwhile I await your response to Message 41 Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : link, coding fixes Edited by RAZD, : note added 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 1726 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thanks mindspawn for reposting most of this.
Lake Suigetsu was separate from Lake Mikata before the canal was built that stopped the diaton growth in Lake Suigetsu a few hundred years ago. This well known piece of information explains why the chronology is "floating" rather than an absolute chronology.
I appreciate your explanation regarding the deposition of the silt in the central lake locations, and believe you have largely explained the seasonal as opposed to rainfall deposition of the silt particles. That's a start.
... This effect is complicated by the fact that there was a land bridge separating Lake Mikata from Lake Suigetsu in the past. Which isolated Lake Suigetsu, thus ensuring all inflow was from the river and local runoff (watershed).
Curiously the fact that the diatoms settle fast in mass deaths and the clay sediment settles slowly fits in with my claim of 10-12 annual layers due to the fact that the rainfall season overlaps with the diatom bloom season. Freshwater diatom blooms have a varying life-span depending on location, but in many locations this lasts for a number of months in spring/summer. During the 5 to 6 months of heaviest rainfall the steady deposition would be interrupted by approximately 11 mass diatom die-offs due to the number of spring tides that overlap the rainy season. Believing this does not make it so. It doesn't matter how many die-offs you imagine, because you don't have the time to form a clay layer between them. There could be two, there could be twenty and you would still have one diatom layer because there would be no separation. Please provide rainfall records, both current and historical so you can compare them to actual core sediment layers. Please provide information on when these spring tides occurred so you can compare them to actual core sediment layers. Integration of Old and New Lake Suigetsu 14C Data SetsRADIOCARBON, Vol 55, Nr 4, 2013, p 2049—2058 https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/16339/pdf quote: The new chronology has no gaps and is longer than the previous one, more accurate (1mm compared to 3mm) and the core diameter is larger. Previous core sections are now aligned to the new set and the plant macrofossils from the old cores are used in the new correlation curve. There are some pictures (in color on the online PDF version) of the cores, which you may want to look at so you can see if there are any of the effects you claim.
1) How were the volcanic layers dated ? With Th-Ur dating (hehe) Perhaps you could read the article and find out. Even if it weren't, you still need to deal with the demonstrated accuracy and precision of Uranium-Thorium dating.
2) The consilience with coral data is completely irrelevant, that was done with Th-Ur dating. Which is why it is consilience. Saying it is irrelevant does NOT explain the high degree of consilience between two different systems, when there would be NO such correlation if either were based on erroneous measurements ... unless you have a means to explain why they both are wrong in the same way at the same time. Otherwise just claiming it is irrelevant is a sign of cognitive dissonance and your attempt to resolve it by ignoring information. I'll get to Lake Suigetsu again in greater detail later. In the meantime I await your response to Message 41 and Message 42 Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : c/d 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 1726 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1726 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 1726 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 1726 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 1726 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 1726 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 1726 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1726 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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1726 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. Another claim made without evidence. Your whole argument rests on your "dryness of the soil" which is false -- the trees grow on rock outcroppings and preferentially grow on dolomite because it retains moisture. Only in the winter when the water freezes does this supply stop.
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. Relevant because it shows you are grasping at straws rather than confronting actual evidence. And you don't have "a few weeks" between rainfalls for you mysterious magical 11-12 events per year -- the growing season is 6 to 12 weeks: you have a week or less between your hypothetical events, and the amount of rain in them is 1/2" or less. Claiming it is irrelevant is a symptom of cognitive dissonance, a way for you to tell yourself lies to reduce the dissonance.
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. Time for you to actually read up and learn: it is typical behavior of all trees to build up a storage of water when available and use it later -- all you need to do is look at all the vegetation that lives in deserts. And again -- you don't have "many weeks" without rain - the growing season is 6 to 12 weeks, divide that by your mysterious magical 11-12 events per year and you have half a week to a week ... between small rainfalls of 1/2" or less. You also have trees that have adapted to their ecology by growing on dolomite because it absorbs more water than the surrounding sandstone.
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..... Or it could just be evidence that you are wrong. Note once again that this paragraph is ripe with evidence of cognitive dissonance, full of the made up assertions (lies) you tell yourself to reduce your personal dissonance. Again you refer to "evolutionary time-frames" something that is non-existent. You refer to ridicule of the establishment, when in science a scientist hopes to overturn previous knowledge and improve on what has gone before -- actual science that shows previous conclusions were false is welcomed. and "almost religious fervour to support evolution and mock those who question it" is your conspiracy theory again.
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. It's simple maths, the trees live for thousands of years, you have specimens that are 5000 to 7000 years old, there are hundreds of trees, the chronology spans almost 8,000 years, therefor overlaps of thousands of years is more likely than not. and they are not using only four bars look again at the diagram:
A, B and C are the specimens that were collected, they are matched A to B for the entire overlap period and they are matched B to C for the entire overlap period, not just where the arrows are. Your math is questionable because there are many more than four variable widths in tree rings.
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. This is you misunderstanding again. You can do cross checking with any species using specimens of the same age. The reason the two species of Bristlecone pine are used is because the specimens are available for building the chronology back 8,000 years. This is no different than cross checking growth rings with historical dates -- cross-checking is used to confirm the chronology, not to build it. Note only are the two species isolated, but groves of each of these trees are isolated from others ... because they grow on mountain peaks. http://www.fs.fed.us/...ase/feis/plants/tree/pinari/all.html (again)
quote: Rocky Mountain bristlecone pine Pinus aristata -- Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center | U.S. Geological SurveyGreat Basin bristlecone pine Pinus longaeva -- Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center | U.S. Geological Survey Foxtail pine bristlecone pine -- Geosciences and Environmental Change Science Center | U.S. Geological Survey 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. No you have not explained, because you have provided absolutely no evidence for stress bands actually being counted in error -- this is just something you made up to tell yourself and reduce your cognitive dissonance.
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. Tree ring dates matched exactly (100%) with historical dates for Bristlecone pine and Irish oak for 1816 CE, 536 CE and 42 BCE, Bristlecone pine, Irish oak, German oak and pine dendrochronologies match with error less than 0.5%. ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : 42 not 44 Edited by RAZD, : , iby 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 1726 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. "prove" is a word that doesn't really apply to science, concepts can be invalidated/disproven, but there is alway a possibility that new information will invalidate current concepts. What we can have is a high degree of confidence that the current concepts approximate reality to a high degree, and that further study will improve the accuracy of the concepts rather than completely destroy them. 99.5% accuracy is an example of high confidence -- ie that the real value is somewhere +/-0.5% of the value determined by dendrochronology. But I have shown you the documentation (IntCal04) that discusses this accuracy: Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C. B., Reimer, R. W., Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP, Radiocarbon, Vol 46, Nr 3, 2004, p 1029—1058 University of Arizona Libraries
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." That second paragraph is a direct quote from the paper just cited.
(99.5% agreement?) Yes -- when we include the Bristlecone pine we have a discrepancy of 37 years at 7600 BP ... ... 37/7600 = 0.004868421 = 0.4868421% error => 100%-0.48% = 99.52% not erroneous, 99.52% accurate.
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. No, everyone knows that trees would slow down during droughts. Trees have reserves to call on in extreme conditions, and those that live where extreme conditions commonly occur are better adapted to surviving those conditions. And once again you are basing your perception on false assumptions. The Bristlecone pines grow near the tree line, higher than other species of trees, and they preferentially grow on outcrops of dolomite, because dolomite retains more moisture than the surrounding sandstone. Dolomite is rock not soil, it soaks up water when it is available (such as after spring thaw) and the trees are able to tap those reservoirs of water. The growing season is only 6 to 12 weeks, and that is just not enough time for the dolomite to completely dry out in 11 or 12 events ... that's at most a week between events ... And the amount of precipitation that falls as rain is less than 1/2 of 10" to 12" ... at most it is 1/2" ... hardly enough to cause massive growth of several rings ... because new cells don't form that fast. The math is against you.
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. So now you are trying to redefine stress rings, and assume that you know more about tree growth than the scientists that have actually studied it ... another sign of cognitive dissonance, trying to change the evidence to fit your belief. Again, the dolomite acts as a reservoir and the rain only restocks the reservoir. The cells and needles in the trees act as reservoirs.
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. (1) Where did you point this out?(2) What is the source of this information? (3) How did they determine that multiple rings formed? By identifying stress rings? 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. So you agree that rainfall of 1/2" with rarer rains of 1" would occur on weekly intervals ... All your weather stations are to the west side of the mountains where the Bristlecone pines grow -- the WET side where the rain falls on the mountain as the air is forced up to altitudes that cause the rain to fall. The air is dry because of the altitude ... so the west side of the mountain purges the air of moisture, and what comes over the top is drier a lot drier. Therefore using west side weather is false information. The trees grow on dolomite and not "absolutely dry soil" ... And you still only have 6 to 12 weeks to form 11 to 12 layers of cells of decreasing size and then new ones -- growth more than has been measured to occur in a 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 " Note that they do not say dry soil. Note that they do not say 11 to 12 droughts per year. Note that they do say that the Bristlecone pines are "well adapted" to survive the conditions. Note the reference to dolomite.
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. And curiously, the "RECENT match" would include the precise and 100% accurate matches with historical events (volcano eruptions) at 1816 CE, 536 CE and 42 BCE. Note that I expect that other matches will be found for other eruptions (they are noted in the papers as correlations between tree rings and ice core layers) if historical references can be found. Perhaps Egyptian or Chinese docuements. The problem you have is now trying to force conditions in Ireland and Germany to match the climate patterns in the Bristlecone pines, but at different ages by inventing a new concept ... your false ring concept for the Bristlecone pine does not apply to the oaks -- as you concede -- and you are grasping at straws rather than confront the evidence that this shows your concept of multiple rings in the Bristlecone pine is false.
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. see Reimer et al, IntCal04 above
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). And dendrochronologists and botanists who have studied actual tree growth and actual response to actual stress conditions will be laughing at you and your hubris. And of course scientists will ask for the evidence -- that is how science works. And truly neutral readers will note the lack of evidence to support your position, the denial of evidence that counters your position, the massive amounts of evidence that support annual rings and an old earth ... they will not be blinded by your belief.
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. Curiously we know about the Holocene weather patterns from the tree rings not in spite of them. You have also failed to show that mysterious magical stress rings that perfectly mimic annual rings would apply to those events ...
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." Without drought your mysterious magical annual ring mimicking stress rings -- the mechanism you invented for the Bristlecone pine to make it fit your belief -- would not happen for the oaks. Or are you making up another mechanism ... in effect saying that the evidence is a lie but was made that way to fool people ... From email received:
quote: I fully expect to find that what you assume to have occurred is not what the paper actually says.
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? All you need to do is look at the maps in the papers to see where they are.
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." In other words there is a lot of variation in species and sites, and that the choices of species and sites to use depends on what you are looking for, be it climate or age measurements. and my response on the Peanut Gallery was:
quote: Other pages on his wonderful website talk about cross-dating and how chronologies are checked for accuracy. If you read the rest of the information you will notice a familiar image ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : 42 not 44by 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 1726 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
happy thanksgiving mindspawn. hope you have a happy family gathering. I'll finish this later.
Enjoy.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 1726 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
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. ... Then you have a problem when you argue against the recent Bristlecone pine tree ring chronology, because it matches (cross-checks) with the Irish oak chronology.
... Weather patterns beyond 2000bp were often dryer in Europe and that is where the multiple rings become applicable. A new assertion without evidence ... but how come those rings match the Bristlecone pine rings?
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. ... Actually we can go further back than than. There is King Hezekiah's tunnel for instance Forbidden
quote: Radiometric dating of the Siloam Tunnel, Jerusalem | Nature
quote: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/hezekiah.html
quote: The 14C plant dates (700-800 BCE) and U-Th stalactite dates (400 BCE) bracket the tunnel age at 400 BCE to 800 BCE, which also brackets the time of Hezekiah's rule. That's a fairly wide range for judging accuracy, but it certainly shows they are in the right ball-park and cannot be significantly off by factors of 11 or 12. Then there is Egyptian history and dating of various finds Ramsey, C.B., Dee, M.W., Rowland, J.M., Higham, T.F.G., Harris, S.A., Brock, F., Quiles, A., Wild, E.M., Marcus, E.S., Shortland, A.J., Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt, Science 18 June 2010: 328 (5985), 1554-1557. [DOI:10.1126/science.1189395] Just a moment...
quote: The earliest 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 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 tree ring chronologies.
... 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 Another grasping at straws, and you are running out of room ... at 4125 BP for our earliest to date match between dendrochronology and history we are half way through the Bristlecone and Irish dendrochronology calendars ... with only ~1% error. Do you realize that Monsoon is a season rather than a single storm event?
quote: So a season with lots of rain followed by a season of dry weather ... rather perfect for the formation on annual tree rings. Curiously the Egyptian civil calendar was broken into 12 months of 30 days + 5 extra days at the end, beginning with the rise of Sirius, and the months were divided into three seasons Egyptian calendar - Wikipedia
quote: Inundation would be the flooding of the Nile and correspond to their Monsoon season, an annual event. From your link:
quote: On reading this paper I don't see how it helps you. Typically during monsoon seasons there is no dearth of water for growth (Irish and German oaks for example). Perhaps you could explain how this makes many additional tree rings? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : refsby 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 1726 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Maybe you are not aware of the Purdue studies on detected fluctuations in the decay rate of radioactive isotopes. This was partly discussed in the Flood geology forum and also in another thread in this forum. Purdue University has found the following relationship between decay rates and the solar wind:1) During a solar flare decay may slow down suddenly The strange case of solar flares and radioactive elements 2) There is a July slowdown in decay New system could predict solar flares, give advance warning - Purdue University "This influence can wax and wane due to seasonal changes in the Earth's distance from the sun and also during solar flares, according to the hypothesis, which is supported with data published in a dozen research papers since it was proposed in 2006, said Ephraim Fischbach, a Purdue University professor of physics." 3) There is a midnight slowdown in decay 4) There are "periodicities" 11.2-1 years and 12.5 years-1 http://arxiv.org/abs/1205.0205"This article presents an analysis of about 29,000 measurements of gamma radiation associated with the decay of radon in a sealed container at the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI) Laboratory in Jerusalem between 28 January 2007 and 10 May 2010. These measurements exhibit strong variations in time of year and time of day, which may be due in part to environmental influences. However, time-series analysis reveals a number of periodicities, including two at approximately 11.2 year−1 and 12.5 year−1. We have previously found these oscillations in nuclear-decay data acquired at the Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and at the Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB), and we have suggested that these oscillations are attributable to some form of solar radiation that has its origin in the deep solar interior. A curious property of the GSI data is that the annual oscillation is much stronger in daytime data than in nighttime data, but the opposite is true for all other oscillations. This may be a systematic effect but, if it is not, this property should help narrow the theoretical options for the mechanism responsible for decay-rate variability." The fluctuations are slight, but clearly detectable. Decay slows down during any increased penetration of the solar wind as described in the 4 points above. Regarding midnight, the solar wind that continuously bombards the poles penetrates the magnetic field easiest at the midnight position. In July the magnetic field is tilted most strongly towards the sun (in the northern hemisphere) and there is therefore increased penetration through the magnetic field in the weak spot of the magnetic field above the north pole. Conclusion:1)If slight increases in solar penetration can cause a small drop in decay, there is a strong possibility that large decreases in solar penetration can cause large increases in decay. 2) A strong magnetic field would cause large decreases in solar penetration. 3) The discovery that the process lacks randomness therefore removes the application of the half-life formula, which in turns ruins the current exponential curve that is applied to radioactive dates (the exponential effect of the half-life formula no longer applies) Four points:
Gamma Decay
quote: The element and isotope before is the same as the element and isotope after γ decay. In addition γ particles are photons, like light. On the other hand we have this article pertaining to half-life consistency over a wide range of test conditions: Emery, G.T., Perturbation of Nuclear Decay Rates, Annual Review of Nuclear Science Vol. 22: 165-202 (Volume publication date December 1972), DOI: 10.1146/annurev.ns.22.120172.001121 Just a moment...
quote: Note that 83,000 Gauss is 270,000 times stronger than the Earth's current magnetic field at the surface on the equator, on the order of magnitude of a high resolution research MRI, and 3-6 times the strength of a clinical MRI (Wikipedia). In other words, yes I am aware of gamma ray decay variation, but there is no significant measurable effect on either α++ or β- decay, or any effect on the half-lives involved in radiometric dating. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : fin Edited by Admin, : Fix link.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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2025