|
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: |
So I wade through a 30 page document to try and find some proof that recent BCP chronology matches European chronology and all I find is references to 4700bp, 7600bp, 4900 bp and these had enough error not even to be used in their IntCal04 study. Could you kindly point to somewhere in that study or anywhere else that makes your point that recent White Mountain BCP tree rings cannot have multiple rings because they are cross dated with European trees? Its a simple request of mine for you to show evidence for your claims. Yes, they compared the dendrochronologies for IntCal98 in 1998, at which time there was agreement between the Bristlecone pine chronology and the German oak chronology:
quote: You can read the IntCal98 paper at Full PDF download here Because of the 41 year discrepancy with the Irish oak chronology they didn't use the Irish oak chronology in 1998. Then the German oak chronology was corrected for the effect of cockchafer beetles and they had a better match with the Irish oak chronology than the Bristlecone pine chronology, and so they dropped the Bristlecone pine chronology as the outlier.
The University of Arizona Institutional Repository... "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. Applying this shift to the Tucson data results in a close fit to the wiggles of the German oak, which would not occur if there were an error in the dendrochronology of either series. Because of this offset, the IntCal working group has decided not to include the BCP record in IntCal04." Note the part I have emphasized in bold They spot checked four dates on the Bristlecone pine and found a 37 year discrepancy that would be resolved to match the wiggle pattern of the oak chronologies by shifting it to be 37 years older (ie -- it is missing 37 years compared to the others). Matching the wiggle pattern means all the ups and downs in between the spot checked dates matched -- not just those three dates.
Yes, the agreement is in the earlier Holocene, this suits my argument as well. I need you to show me that BCP trees do not currently have multiple rings. And curiously, the Bristlecone pine is apparently missing 37 years, and the match seen "would not occur if there were an error in the dendrochronology of either series." You just can't have many multiple rings currently and still match the oak chronologies -- it just is not mathematically possible.
There are only two weather stations on the dryer east side of the Sierra mountains in close proximity to the White Mountains: Not Found Not Found Even further east in the dry Nevada, the rainfall pattern is the same, intermittent summer rainfalls interspersed with dry spells:Not Found Curiously I went to weatherspark and put in "white mountains california"
So I get quite a different result from you, one more in keeping with the actual reports of actual conditions regarding the environment where the Bristlecone pines grow.
Do you deny that the White Mountains have intermittent summer rainfalls separated by dry spells of a few weeks? Once again there are these relevant points:
The math and the ecology are against your argument.
Please provide your evidence that cells and needles act as reservoirs and cause continuous growth throughout dry summer conditions. ... Standard botany. Home | The Canopy Database Project
quote: http://www.unm.edu/~pockman/pubs/storage.pdf
quote: ... Please also provide evidence that dolomite retains moisture over weeks even after only an inch of rain on some of the driest slopes on earth. Again this is basic behavior of the physics involved -- as the water is used it becomes available in decreasing amounts along an exponential curve, similar to a half-life curve, reduced but not depleted.
As for stress rings, I used your definition of stress rings, and your definition does not apply to the Bristlecone Pine situation which lacks any moisture between precipitation. Then they would show the pattern of stress rings not annual rings.
In post 27 and 36. The source is from creationist studies. They identified these rings by counting rings. Message 27 Do you mean this?
The Holocene had dry patches which would have affected tree growth rings by a large factor (the number of annual wet/dry spells per year). This would be reflected in much smaller rings during dry periods. http://www.clim-past.net/8/1751/2012/cp-8-1751-2012.pdf No multiple tree rings documented there. But it does use U-Th dating ...
Message 36 Do you mean this?
Just a moment... "Increasing temperature at high elevations is likely a prominent factor in the modern unprecedented level of growth for Pinus longaeva at these sites." It too does not discuss multiple ring growth, rather they discuss wider rings than normal, and find that the trees are most limited by temperature near the tree-line so that global climate change (warming) has promoted more growth near the tree-line, but little effect below that.
quote: So much for being water limited ... so much for 11 to 12 mysterious magical stress rings ... because the precipitation sensitivity relates to the width of the rings not the number of rings. When the abstract says
quote: What they are talking about is ring width not the number of rings. If you got this from a creationist site then they were likely misrepresenting the information ... and then you failed to actually read the paper?
I agree the trees are well adapted, dolomite does not make your point. Just because the soils can retain moisture better than other soils, does not mean they will always be damp in one of the driest places on earth. I can see you are milking the dolomite point, but I have faced that fact and still find your logic short of making your point. And yet it is not an off/on proposition, but one of diminishing returns along an exponential curve, there would in effect be a "half-life" to the water content of the dolomite. I keep repeating this point because it is what allows the Bristlecone pines to suck water out of their environment, and this is the reason that the high elevation trees are actually temperature sensitive instead.
RAZD I need you to just provide your evidence. Your repeated claims that 1816 shows in Bristlecone chronologies is starting to sound hollow without your evidence. The link you provide referred to ancient BCP chronolgies which confirms my point. I need more links from you to show that 1816 shows up in any White Mountain Bristlecone chronologies. And yet I have shown you that information. LaMarche studied the Bristlecone pines and found frost-rings -- rings of damaged cells -- at the 1816 layers (among others). Message 52 404 Not Found
quote: The frost rings were cause by early freezes in the trees that are temperature sensitive, living in elevations that only get above their minimum living temperatures for short periods each year.
Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating at the Millennium - PDF quote: Same guy same trees same chronology ...
My belief that incredibly dry slopes during two week drought conditions would cause a temporary suspension in wood growth? You need stronger support than dolomite soils to contradict the obvious about the nature of wood growth. ... Two weeks would only cause a slow down rather than complete cessation ... if you HAD two weeks ...
... Like I said , the multiple rings have been proven in experiments. And yet the reference for these purported experiments are apparently papers that have nothing to do with the number of tree rings as far as I can see -- do you have another reference ... or is this an example of selective memory and cognitive dissonance resolution? Now I can point you to an actual creationist article that does pretend to have multiple growth rings ... and also to the information that shows that the creationist paper is full of intentional misrepresentation, falsehoods, and innuendo designed to fool gullible people. Interested?
I was referring to history, you seem to be referring to modern maps. Can you show me a middle Holocene map that shows that these were flood plain trees back then? Curiously the rivers are not that nimble in changing locations ... they would be in pretty much the same relative geography through the Holocene, including where the flood plains are (if anything they wander within the flood plain).
The agreement over long periods supports my position too. I have never denied long term agreement on the various tree chronologies. You have to show that there is recent agreement with the BCP chronology as well to make your point. All three dendrochronologies are absolute chronologies, meaning they are anchored by at least one tree of absolutely known dates (dates when sampled, dates when cut down, dates when germinated etc). They agree for over 7,600 years with a maximum error of 37 years (0.48% error), yet still match the wiggle patterns one to the other. They agree with each other and with history for 1816 CE, they agree with each other and with history for 536 CE, they agree with each other and with history for 42 BCE, and lately we see that the Bristlecone pine agrees with history for 2660 BCE It is illogical to think that this correlation is due to anything but actual age. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : interim Edited by RAZD, : fin Edited by RAZD, : link Edited by RAZD, : link Edited by RAZD, : 4,3 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: |
'm starting with your last comment first, kindly supply your proof that 1816 is recorded in those long lasting Bristlecone Pine trees of the White Mountains. This is my third request and would really strengthen your case if you could back up this statement with facts. This is my third reply -- see Message 52 2,040-year-old tree's rings read like global history quote: Volcanoes, ice-cores and tree-rings: one story or two? quote: Archaeological Tree-Ring Dating at the Millennium - PDF quote: Same guy, same trees, same chronology ...
The slopes are dry, and even dolomite drains, it merely retains the moisture longer than other soils. The presence of dolomite does not create an indefinite supply of moisture, it merely allows those trees to live, without the dolomite they would die in those conditions. Please supply your evidence for your comment "only in winter when the water freezes does this supply stop". Providing evidence for this comment will assist your point and so I'm looking forward to your evidence. and again it is a matter of diminishing returns instead of an on/off situation ... the water available becomes more difficult to extract so the availability is on an exponential curve, and, like radioactive decay, it would have a 'half-life' -- thus the supply would diminish but never stop. Until it freezes ... at the end of the 6 to 12 week growing season ...
I assumed you actually looked at the rainfall chart that I supplied for the White mountains, there are dry spells of a few weeks between wet spells. Please supply your evidence that the growing season is always limited to 6 to 8 weeks and if this growth is limited to the warm summer months, this ruins your argument that the growth is only from the annual spring melt. This summer growth argument actually suits me, because then growth is limited to the intermittent summer rainfalls which I have been claiming. When I looked into this growth season, it appears to be over 3 months, only sometimes being limited to 6 weeks. It's 6 to 12 weeks, just search my previous posts. Your rainfall charts do not apply -- look instead at the one I provided. Note average precipitation is ~0.5" ...
... Any number of multiple rings ruins your argument, there does not always have to be 10-12 rings a year. Glad you think that -- some progress maybe. The problem you have is this:
Rather than too many rings it has too few.
This is your claim, a debate is not won through unsubstantiated claims. ... Gosh, you better get to work then.
... You need to present evidence as to how these trees store water and for how long they grow when the water supply is eliminated. See Message 70:
Standard botany. Home | The Canopy Database Project
quote: http://www.unm.edu/~pockman/pubs/storage.pdf
quote: Different trees have different degrees of this ability, those that have lived in minimal water ecologies generally have better developed storage than those that live in lush conditions. Bristlecone pines have lived in this high altitude dry environment for several millenia and have adapted to it.
We will see who has the cognitive dissonance as this debate continues, and I do think that evolutionary theory has been prematurely accepted as fact and so there is some intellectual pride and sometimes careers at stake if it is refuted. This does not amount to conspiracy theory though, merely human pride. The problem for you though, is not the strength of your belief (human pride?), but in the fact that you are exhibiting classic cognitive dissonance resolution patterns. This has nothing to do with scientists pursuing information and everything with personal dissonance resolution ... blaming the messengers is classic dissonance resolution behavior, and it allows you to feel 'safe' in your belief rather than have to confront the information provided.
Your comment has circular reasoning. The diagram is convincing, all we need now is for you to demonstrate that the reality is as convincing as the pretty picture. Can you demonstrate this? Can you really tell me that one living tree that is over 5,000 years old, and one dead but standing tree that is over 7,000 years old do not have thousands of overlapped years within an 8,000 year chronology? That these two trees alone count for most of the chronology to 7,600 BP when the error compared to the oak chronologies was found to be only 0.48%? Really?
I am not following your point here. I do not believe there are any stress bands, so I am not claiming they are counted in error. Multiple rings a year caused by environment rather than annual growth are by definition stress rings.
My summary so far regarding Bristlecone pines: 1) You still have provided no evidence for recent matching of BCPs with trees of definite annual growth patterns (eg 1816) Done and double done
2) Even Dolomite soils drain in an extreme dry environment, no soil can hold water indefinitely, you need to prove how long dolomite retains moisture in a dry environment after about one inch of rainfall. It is not an on/off proposition but one of diminishing returns. That slows growth rather than ends it.
3) Your summer growing season claim contradicts your claim of a spring growing season. How so? In the spring the snow melts, the ground thaws, the dolomite takes up water, the trees start growing with large early growth cells. As the summer progresses the water in the dolomite decreases, even if occasionally replenished by light summer rains, and so the growth declines, cells get smaller. Then winter come, early at those high altitudes, the ground and the trees freeze and growth stops, completely, forming an end of year band.
4) I don't need 10-12 annual rings to refute your argument, a few summer rainfalls separated by dry spells of a few weeks also suits my argument. Glad to see you are moving away from that argument. But a few rainfalls/dry spells, even with dry spells of a few weeks would not cause a false annual ring. There would likely be variation in cell size, but cells do not grow in a day, the dolomite acts as a reservoir smoothing out the water supply. But your biggest problem is that the Bristlecone pine chronology is apparently missing 37 annual rings: rather than having an excess there are too few. Thus 37 extra rings would actually appear to make the chronology better.
5) You need to present evidence that trees continue to grow for many weeks after rainfalls, how and for how long do they retain moisture? Done and double done.
6) I still maintain that a tree would stop growing after a few weeks of no rainfall in extreme dry conditions even in dolomite soils, and feel you need to answer some of the above questions to refute this claim. This is how wood grows, with extreme moisture sensitivity. And actual studies show that it is not moisture but temperature that is the critical limiting factor for the trees near the tree line, that the trees are not limited by "extreme moisture sensitivity" ... Your opinion is your opinion and you are free to believe it, however opinion has been demonstrated to have remarkably little influence on reality.
7) I mentioned the Lammerts study in post 27 and post 36, where Bristlecone Pines have been shown to show multiple growth rings in in induced two week drought conditions. Message 27:In addition creationists have actually shown that young bristlecone pines can show multiple rings per year, this study was done by Lammerts. No citation and no reference at that time ...
Message 36: The conditions were duplicated by Lammerts, but I already mentioned this in my message 27, he showed that Bristlecone pines do actually grow multiple growth rings. This is mainly due to the dry spells interrupting growth, and the White Mountain area, air and soil is extremely dry. Again no citation and no reference at that time ... Do you really expect me to respond to a comment made without substantiation or reference to the source?
http://www.sedin.org/crs_samp/26_1a.htm You have not responded to the Lammerts study. Gosh it's Gish ... not Lammert ... and you expected me to find it by what ... divine intervention? Curiously, I may respond in greater detail in my next post for further review of this ... purported study ... but what I saw in a quick cursory reading was that there was a (typical?) 'slight-of-hand' quick misdirection for no rings in early growth and then suddenly 3 year old and 4 year old saplings having 3 and 4 rings ... seems more like he is trying to fool you than to do anything real (or honest). This would be very easy to replicate by an unscrupulous person ... you take the measurement for the saplings at or near the top and you will have no rings, then take the 3 and 4 year old saplings near the root and you will have all the rings recorded. Duane Gish is a known purveyor of falsehoods. Having a 3 year old sapling with 3 growth rings ... having a 4 year old sapling with 4 growth rings ... is not conclusive evidence of multiple ring growth (I can show you better). 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: |
Thanks to you as well.
We had new england fare -- lobster -- followed by pumpkin pie. I spent many years in Canada and so I celebrate two thanksgivings, one in October (instead of Columbus Invasion Day) and one in November. Then with Winter Solstice (21 Dec this year) that will be three major feasts in three months ... so New Year's will be a time for fasting.
And thanks for the civility of the discussion so far, the discussion may seem haphazard and repetitive but I do believe we are making progress, even if merely to define where our differences lie. Well I see some progress, even if is is slow small baby steps. But yes, this is an opportunity to lay out our respective positions in great detail. 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:
|
Please supply your evidence that the growing season is always limited to 6 to 8 weeks and if this growth is limited to the warm summer months, this ruins your argument that the growth is only from the annual spring melt. This summer growth argument actually suits me, because then growth is limited to the intermittent summer rainfalls which I have been claiming. When I looked into this growth season, it appears to be over 3 months, only sometimes being limited to 6 weeks. As I said before 6 to 12 weeks ... 3 months is 12 weeks. Currently I am obtaining additional information on the Bristlecone/dolomite environment, but I did run across this abstract: Wright, R.D., Some Ecological Studies on Bristlecone Pine in the White Mountains of California, 1963 PhD Thesis for University of California Plant Science Dept., Mooney, H.A., Advisor, Some Ecological Studies on Bristlecone Pine in the White Mountains of California | Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research
quote: Wright, R.D., Mooney, H.A., Substrate-oriented Distribution of Bristlecone Pine in the White Mountains of California, American Midland Naturalist, Vol. 73, No. 2 (Apr., 1965), pp. 257-284 Published by: The University of Notre Dame JSTOR: Access Check This is a copy of fig 4 from the paper.
This seems to show spring thaw snow-melt for the first three weeks, with a small dip to ~6.5% moisture content, a short reprieve (likely summer rain) and then decline again, all in a 5 week measurement period. Wilting occurs as a tree uses up its reserves. Not sure how pwp was calculated - but it appears to be a calculation based on soil tension and not a field study. That this pwp is not critical for the Bristlecone pine is shown by Fig 7:
... which shows declining but active photosynthesis and respiration down to ~4% to 5% moisture content, below the low point above, so it appears that the pwp is not correct (the pwp is at ~8.3% moisture content). This could be due to altitude affecting the water pressure, but the growth observed could also be due to having deep roots below 8" (Fig 4 is only the conditions at 8" deep), and the Bristlecone pine is a deep-rooted tree able to use water deeper in the soil. There is also some good climate records in this report:
quote: Note -- only August does not have snow
http://www.sedin.org/crs_samp/26_1a.htm You have not responded to the Lammerts study. I have read the document you linked, but it is not Lammert's study ... it is a review? summary? regurgitation? by Duane Gish (of Gish Gallop infamy), which is not a good start. I have also read some documentation on Lammert that casts a doubtful slant to his purported work from other creationists that disagreed with him on elements of geology that they are better versed in. Not a good start at all. The source you want is: Lammerts, W. E. 1983. Are the bristle-cone pine trees really so old? CRSQ 20:108-15. CRSQ is Creation Research Society Quarterly -- their pretend scientific journal. There doesn't appear to be an actual copy available, the best I could find was The page you were looking for doesn't exist (404)
quote: Lammert is not a dendrochronologist and from what I have seen of his work he would likely willingly - blindly - interpret a stress ring as a growth ring, thus he is able to convince himself that he has created an extra growth ring instead of a stress ring. He also uses San Francisco weather instead of White Mountain weather ... an erroneous application that is based on stupidity, ignorance, delusion, insanity or malice. It certainly is not honest. At least you attempted to find the appropriate weather pattern ... Against this claim we have:
Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale quote: LaMarche and Harlan obtained samples in 1971 that were cross-matched with White Mountain Bristlecone Pines sampled in 1954 by Schulman. Most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period 1954—1971, a few formed only 17 rings, none formed more than 18 rings. This certainly indicates that the Bristlecone pines did not grow more than one ring per year. So that is very solid evidence that recent growth patterns do NOT involve extra rings, in fact it shows that missing rings are fairly common but detectable. Tree Ring Accuracy and Precision Tree rings and dendrochronology are one of the most accurate and precise annual measuring systems available to both scientist and the layperson: it is fairly easy to count rings in a cross-section or coring of a tree. Once the problems of false rings and missing rings are identified it becomes possible to identify these in the chronologies, and thus correct them for such errors. This is well documented in Message 41, Dendrochronology Basics. This has been tested by comparing the chronologies with actual historical events. There is 100% agreement with several historical events:
In addition, as noted in Message 54, Irish Oaks, and Message 55, German Oak and Pines, artifacts from an Egyptian tomb had 14C levels measured and the results then compared those to the IntCal04 combined oak and pine chronology to determine the relative dendro/calendar age for those measured levels, resulting in a further match to historical documents at 2660 BCE with 99% accuracy and precision.(6) This of course is the purpose for testing the 14C levels in the dendrochronologies and this will be discussed in greater detail later. Another measure of accuracy and precision is to compare several dendrochronologies against each other. As noted in Message 54, Irish Oaks, and Message 55, German Oak and Pine, such comparison was done:
INTCAL04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP, PDF(7)
quote: That's a lot of information but it all comes down to this: The Bristlecone Pine had been included in IntCal98, but is not included in the calibration data for IntCal04 because it is 37 years younger than the two oak chronologies at 4700 to 7600 BP (before 1950). This was determined by remeasuring 4 data points of the Bristlecone pine chronology and finding that there was an offset compared to the oak chronologies. When the chronology was shifted 37 years older then the 14C variation 'wiggle' pattern match those of the two oak chronologies. As noted in Message 52, Bristlecone pines, because the Bristlecone pines grow at such high elevations they have very short periods of growth when the temperature is only slightly above what they 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 - similar to what was found by LaMarche and Harlan in 1973 - that would make the chronology too young. This, however, results in an error of only 0.48% at 5650 BCE, which is still very high accuracy. This very strong consilience between all three dendrochronologies and with historical dates back to 2660 BCE demonstrates that they are annual ring chronologies with very high precision and accuracy and that this results in high confidence in the ages measured. There is also consilience with Carbon-14 level measurements. The calculation of 14C age and the calibration of the measurements will be discussed later, however here we can discuss the simple measurement of 14C: the amount measured in the tree rings in each of the chronologies matches from one chronology to the other for the years covered by the chronology -- with the caveat that the Bristlecone pine chronology is shifted 37 years older. Because 14C decays these measured amounts are decreasing with age, as expected, but the matches between the dendrochronologies would not be expected if there were errors in any one of them. And it doesn't matter what the decay rate of 14C is or whether it varies, samples from the same age will decay by the same amount to the same level today. The annual nature of the Bristlecone Pines were demonstrated by LaMarche and Harlan in 1973:
Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale(8)
quote: LaMarche and Harlan obtained samples in 1971 that were cross-matched with White Mountain Bristlecone Pines sampled in 1954 by Schulman. Most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period 1954—1971, a few formed only 17 rings, none formed more than 18 rings. This certainly indicates that the Bristlecone pines did not grow more than one ring per year. They also compared a new Bristlecone pine chronology going, back to 3535 BCE, with the old one and found that they had two missing rings in 5503 counted rings, an error of <0.04%. They matched the chronologies to find the two dates that had missing rings - which were narrow annual rings on the old chronology - and when they inserted 0 width rings the two chronologies matched year for year with 100% accuracy and precision. So that is very solid evidence that recent growth patterns do NOT involve extra rings, in fact it shows that missing rings are fairly common but detectable. There are also correlations with ice cores that will be discussed later. And tree rings are only one of several annual counting methods for measuring age.
Conclusion Dendrochronology is a well developed discipline that has developed the methodology necessary to match different trees and different species and develop a highly accurate and precise continuous chronology. Three such chronologies agree with over 99.5% accuracy. The longest chronology extends back into the Younger Dryas (12,410 BP - before 1950 - or 10,460 BCE) Enjoy. References
Edited by RAZD, : links Edited by RAZD, : more Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by RAZD, : add fig 7 Edited by RAZD, : added climate Edited by RAZD, : udated w new infoby 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: |
I think we have covered as much detail on tree rings as we need to at this point. We can come back to this when we discuss 14C measurements and decay and the calibration of original atmospheric 14C levels.
It's time to move on to the next form of annual layer systems so that the consilience between them and the tree chronologies can answer a lot of your questions on the validity of the tree rings (if you still have any ... ![]() If I'm getting too far ahead of you let me know. Lake and Marine Varve Basics Rhythmites(1)
quote: Varves(2)
quote: The difference between a rhythmite and a varve is that the rhythmite can have any periodicity, even be variable, but the varve is strictly an annual layering process. Varves can vary from barely distinguishable to dramatic contrast. One of the ways to ensure you have an annual varve system is to look for a cycle of life and death in organisms that are present in one half of the varve (growing season) but are absent in the other half of the varve (non-growing season). Seasonal markers like diatom shells and foraminifera shells have been used, forming a white layer in contrast to a dark sediment layer.
Synchroneity of Tropical and High-Latitude Atlantic Temperatures over the Last Glacial Termination(3)
Varved sediments from Cariaco Basin core PL07-39PC With a well marked layering system, such as is shown above, the layers can be counted, just like tree rings, to form a chronology. The geological principle of superposition applies:
Principle of Superposition(4)
quote: Thus a core taken in a lake with varves will have new layers on top and old layers on the bottom. As with tree rings, individual cores can be cross-checked with others taken from different locations to account for false layers or missing layers. Cores can only be taken in sections due to physical limitations of equipment cores need to be taken in a manner to overlap ends of sections to ensure continuity of the data. Like tree rings there can be floating chronologies and absolute chronologies. If an artifact in a floating chronology can be absolutely dated, then the chronology can be anchored by the artifact age. Organic artifacts (leafs, twigs, insect bodies, etc) and inorganic artifacts (volcanic tuff, flood rubble, etc) can be deposited in the lake, and then be buried by later layers, so their location in the cores provides direct evidence of their age. Care needs to be taken in choosing core sites to avoid taking cores near inlets where false layers from storm runoff and the like would be common. Like tree rings there can be variation from year to year in the thickness of the varves, but unlike tree rings the older layers can become compressed by the weight of the other layers and become thin and harder to distinguish. This also means that absolute thickness at one depth cannot be simply compared to absolute thickness at a different depth to indicate climate changes, but the compression must be taken into account. Because these layers are annual they can have high precision and accuracy in the measured lengths of their chronologies, and errors should be similar to tree ring chronologies, producing high confidence in their results. One of the things that affects rhythmite and varve formation is particle size, and varves can have different layers with different size particles, some that settle faster than others:
Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity(5)
quote: 13.6 Colloids(6)
quote: Particle Size Analysis Lab(7)
quote: Soil Colloids(8)
quote: If we use 0.002 mm (0.0002 cm) for clay in the above formula we get = 1.62 cm/hr = 38.8 cm/day = 15.3 in/day. As you can see the theoretical settling velocity of clay according to Stoke's Law would be very, very slowly. Actual times are longer due to the interaction of charged clay particles with water, and because the clay particles are not spherical, but it would take days if not weeks or months for new clay from rainstorms to settle to the bottom. This is especially true in the center of the lake as the new inflow must take time to mix with the lake water and get dispersed sufficiently to reach the center area. This means that a lake can act as a buffer to average out all the clay sediment being introduced to the lake by the inflow: even large variations in inflow will have little effect on the amount of clay settling to the bottom at the center of the lake. This means that clay layers in varves are strong indicators of annual events, as they have to occur over many months with no other depositions. Enjoy. References
Edited by RAZD, : addedby 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: |
Neither of these documents give any information of the measurements of decay rates. These seem to be more 'news' articles than scientific studies, with the associated hyperbole.
Additional experimental evidence for a solar influence on nuclear decay rates, which is the technical paper that is the subject of the Purdue article you referenced
quote: The standard deviation is 632 so the majority of the counts are within 124593+/-632 per week or vary +/-0.5%
this does not affect α++ or β- decay, which are the decay events involved in radiometric dating,
1) You are incorrect. If you had read all the articles you would have seen that alpha decay and beta decay were affected. Seems so, however ... This effect has not been shown to apply to all radioactive processes, and the effect is a slight periodic variation around a mean with random events still involved all along that "slight" modulation. There is no known cause for this pattern at this time. The overall effect on total annual decay events would be virtually nil, meaning that half-lives would not be affected. The long term decay is still effectively constant.
no half-lives were changed,
2) If you understand that the half-life exponential formula is based on the randomness of decay you would understand that the half-lives are completely affected by the discovery that the process of decay is not random. But the process is still random, even with an "ever so slight" modulation around the mean, and still producing the same half-life -- after 170 years (32Si half-life) you would still have the same total decay events for instance.
Incorrect. You are wrong as explained above. The decay exponential formula of a half-life is wholly dependent on randomness, which is assumption that there is no cause/effect that causes the decay event. And you still have randomness, randomness that is the primary effect, even with an "ever so slight" modulation you still don't have predictable decay for a single atom -- all you can say is that within a specified period you will have a proportion of the atoms decay. That has not changed, and half-lives over a decade are not affected by an "ever so slight" wiggle in the overall average rate of decay. And you still don't have a cause ...
300 Multiple Choices "radioactive decay is a statistical process which depends upon the instability of the particular radioisotope, but which for any given nucleus in a sample is completely unpredictable. The decay process and the observed half-life dependence of radioactivity can be predicted by assuming that individual nuclear decays are purely random events. If there are N radioactive nuclei at some time t, then the number ΔN which would decay in any given time interval Δt would be proportional to N: where λ is a constant of proportionality (decay constant)." And that still holds true. Meanwhile you still have: 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). We also know that rates have not changed significantly over time because of
We can discuss this in greater detail later -- for now I want to concentrate on the annual counting methods of determining age and their consiliences that show high confidence in the results. Even without radioactive decay the evidence shows earth's age is demonstrably much older than any YEC conceptEnjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added Edited by RAZD, : link info Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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: |
Some of this has already been presented here
Lake Suigetsu Varves Scientists lead by Dr. H. Kitagawa were able to measure a lake varve chronology covering a period of 29,100 years. The data from the lake does not have accurate information on the present, due to changes in the lake that disrupted the chronological deposition process (now connected by canal to another lake).They were, however, able to measure and match the 14C/12C levels of organic artifacts taken with the core to 14C/12C levels and their corresponding dendro/calendar ages documented for the German oak and pine tree ring data. This resulted in high correlation for the overlap period between 8,830 BP and 11,550 BP, making this a floating chronology that is now anchored by matching 14C/12C levels. BP refers to 'Before Present' which is defined as 1950 CE. The fast settling diatom shells (which settle to the bottom in days) and the slow settling clay particles (that can take months to settle) ensure that these layers are annual. Only during fall and winter months, after the diatoms have died, is there sufficient time to form a discernable clay layer
A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14C calibration curve(1)
quote: The Lake Suigetsu varve chronology was included in the IntCal98 study, but was dropped for IntCal04 due to the problems that had been identified. With new and additional core data and corrections to the 1998 data (see below for details) they were reinstated in IntCal13:
IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves, 0 - 50,000 Years Cal BP(2)
quote: ie -- you could use just the German oak and pine dendrochronology and the Lake Suigetsu varves for determining calendar age with high accuracy and precision. They took some of the 14C wiggle out to smooth the curves mostly at the earliest end of the curve, beyond the age of the last counted varve. This serves as high validation of the varves, as the criteria and review process that goes into the IntCal calibrations are very strict compared to standard scientific peer review processes. Note that Fig 1 in the first article above shows several ash layers, for which four volcanoes are identified, and these provide possible cross-checks on the measured ages, or this provides accurate dates for the eruptions. Two of these ash layers correlate with information from another source:
Estimation of eruptive ages of the late Pleistocene tephra layers derived from Daisen and Sambe Volcanoes based on AMS-14C dating of the moor sediments at Ohnuma Moor in the Chugoku Mountains, Western Japan PDF(3)
quote: These ages are concordant with the age in Lake Suigetsu cores for both Sakate and Daisen-hoki in the graph above. Note that volcanic deposits are identified by signature elements, and are not the same from different volcanoes. 14C calibration will be discussed later and come back to this information at that time. For now all we are concerned with is the matching of actual measured 14C/12C levels in the organic artifacts with the actual measured 14C/12C levels in the tree rings (a match that would be highly improbable if not due to having the same calendar age due to the decay of 14C). This match then anchors the floating varve chronology. Note that there is a discussion of this research at Lake Varves, Answers in Genesis(4)
quote: The consilience in the data from different sources gives high confidence in the results. As noted above, Lake Suigetsu was re-cored in the summer of 2006 to resolve the issues that had been raised since the first core study:
Integration of Old and New Lake Suigetsu 14C Data Sets PDF(5)
quote: The original earliest counted varve was 37,930 cal yr BP (before 1950), and this has been corrected to be 39,523 +/- 98 BP, a correction to 1,593 years older, the error (+/-98 years) is 0.25%, and the varve count has been extended to 42,098 BP (before 1950). This new study correlates with and confirms the oldstudy was within 4% of the new study data. They were able to use the old data together with the new data to form a combined chronology. This is mostly due to higher precision and accuracy in the varve counting in the new study. They also were able to count some more recent layers than before, and with the extension of the German Oak and Pine chronology this has increased the length of the overlap making the anchoring of the varve chronology more accurate. The current counted annual varves run for a time period of 35,075 years (from 7,023 BP to 42,098 BP if dates are correctly aligned with the tree chronology), and this alone is several times older than any YEC model for the age of the earth. The varve layers continue down below the limits of C-14 dating to ~100,000 years, with some assumptions made below the 42,098 BP cal yr BP level, as the data below this level does not use annual varve layers but an estimated rate of sedimentation. Those estimated dates cannot be used for our minimum annual layer counts other than to say that the earth is older than the annual varves show. Thus either of these two scenarios must apply:
Note that this extends annual chronological dating to the archaeological dates found for the cave paintings at Lasceaux and Chauvet - the archaeological record shows that an early nomadic cave using civilization that involved stone tools, burial ceremonies and undeniably impressive artwork at the Lasceaux Caves in southern France around 15,000 to 13,000 BC, (what is known as the late Aurignacian period) or 17000 years ago, and at a cave near Chauvet (south-central France) around 30,340 and 32,410 years ago. We have verified a chronological age for these artifacts, and we have hardly begun to get into the age of Homo sapiens, the hominid ancestors of man, the age of life on the earth or even the actual ancient age of the earth. Note further that the layers extend back to 100,000 years ago but that this research only concentrated on the last 45,000 years to calibrate C-14 dating. Using only the counted varves this chronology extends back to 42,098 years BP (before 1950).
The earth is at least 42,161 years old (2013) The minimum age for the earth is now at least 42,161 years old (2013), based on the highly accurate and precise varve counting in Lake Suigetsu (+/-0.25% error). This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have disturbed the varve deposition process -- 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 BCE). And this is still only the early stages of annual counting methods. Enjoy. References
Edited by RAZD, : added IntCal13 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:
|
No, in fact all the observations favor my argument. You are not seeing my argument and this weakens your position. A good debate would be to understand my position, and then respond to it, yet you are still not seeing the strength of my position. Your argument is rather hard to follow when you make ad hoc assertions as you go, grabbing at straws and going down rabbit holes.
Let me explain, if all the trees have good recent cross-checks including Bristlecone Pines in Colorado ... They do.
... but not including White Mountain Bristlecone Pines ... Which is false and something you have made up ... one of your rabbit holes ...
... which are in a dry area, ... But not one without sufficient water to grow, slowly, during each 6 to 12 week growing period, mostly on snow melt. 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. Here is information from Substrate-oriented distribution of Bristlecone pine in the White Mountains of California quote: Note the only month without snow is August, and the highest rainfall is in July. When I combine the data in Fig 4 (shows moisture versus time) and Fig 7 (shows respiration and photosynthesis versus moisture), taking the values for moisture at the different time points in fig 4 and plotting those on fig 7 to obtain what the respiration and photosynthesis would be for those times, to match the respiration and photosynthesis to the moisture levels for those 6 measurements made at weekly intervals I get:
From this graph you can see that the ability of the Bristlecone pine growing on dolomite in these conditions is not severely hampered enough to stress the tree sufficiently to form a stress band: the cell size may get smaller, but respiration and photosynthesis proceed, so growth continues. Note that this would theoretically apply to saplings with root depths of 20 cm (8") or less. The mature trees have much deeper roots and would access water at greater depths. You don't have the time, you don't have the climate, and you don't have sufficient drought to cause stress rings in the trees You cannot make this information cause extra rings. You have not shown that the ecology is so limited that the trees cannot grow for the full season, but I have shown you that it is NOT so limited.
... then we have the problem that the oldest trees on earth, ... Which we know we don't have because they are ... living ...
We also know that the "Prometheus" tree (aka WPN-114) was living when cut down, with a measured age of 4862 when cut down in 1964 for research, however this is a minimum age due to the core of the tree is missing, giving it a minimum germination date of 2898 BCE (but likely older). (wiki) And we know there are a lot of other trees, many hundreds of years old, some several thousand years old, in various places.
... White Mountain BCP trees are obviously undergoing a separate annual tree ring growth pattern to the rest of the world. Another false assertion. This has been falsified by information already provided to you: LaMarche Jr, V.C. and Harlan, T.P., Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 78 nr 36, 1973, p 8849—8858, Just a moment...
Message 73 Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale
quote: LaMarche and Harlan obtained samples in 1971 that were cross-matched with White Mountain Bristlecone Pines sampled in 1954 by Schulman. Most trees have formed exactly 18 rings in the period 1954—1971, a few formed only 17 rings, none formed more than 18 rings. This certainly indicates that the Bristlecone pines did not grow more than one ring per year. If you don't have access this is what the google search pages (lamarche 18 bristlecone missing ring) says:
quote: They showed that there were NO extra rings in a period covering 18 years, they counted 18 rings in most trees that had been previously sampled, some had 17 rings -- so if anything they proved my point that they are much more likely to have missing rings than extra ones. In addition it appears that your comments are based on a misreading of the article you cited: Recent unprecedented tree-ring growth in bristlecone pine at the highest elevations and possible causesJust a moment... quote: What they are talking about is that the thickness of the rings is greater than any other 50-year period in the last 3,700 years. This becomes clear if you read the paper, not just the abstract. More CO2, slightly higher temps, thicker rings. The trees are more temperature sensitive than moisture sensitive.
1) This puts doubt on the annual nature of the white Mountain BCP tree rings because you are not showing recent cross-checks with specifically these old trees. But it doesn't put doubt -- you just need to read the information provided, and I have shown you the paper that addresses this issue directly and reports on a study of many trees used in the original chronology, they recored them 18 years later, most had 18 new rings since the original coring, some had 17, none had more than 18. If you want more then I suggest you contact the authors directly.
2) This puts doubt on the annual nature of all trees rings in past ages where the White Mountain BCP trees do actually match the rest of the world's tree ring growth patterns during times when weather was more intermittent (mid/early Holocene) Except that they DO match, as documented in the LaMarche study AND with the documented consilience between the three chronologies in the IntCal papers. This is you again grabbing at straws and running down rabbit holes.
Because weather patterns were different then, dryness and also monsoons, these weather patterns were more compatible with multiple ring growth as per the White Mountain BCP trees. I have shown you two links showing that weather patterns were different back then compared to today's European weather. This explains the ancient matches. I am still waiting for you to show evidence for the recent White Mountain BCP cross-matching. No it doesn't explain why the matches are virtually EXACTLY the same for thousands of rings, with only 0.5% error after 7,600 years. Having mysterious magical rings appear in different chronologies at different times cannot make the rest of the chronologies match because you will have offset one to the other.
If you read the article, they were trying to prove that the tunnel wasn't recently produced, because doubters were doubting they had the technology in biblical times to build that tunnel. The carbon dates given were not exact, for example Ur-Th dating gave a date of 400bc for later stalactites in the tunnel, hardly an exact proof of biblical dates. But enough to prove their point that the tunnel was old. ... And yet the 14C dates matched the time of his reign within the margin of error.
... Of course carbon dating will prove their point because carbon dating overestimates the dates increasingly from about 2000bp and so would produce an older date. I'm not claiming a factor of 11-12 immediately after the year 2000, its the incorrect calibration during the 2000-4000BC period that creates an increasingly larger carbon dating problem especially in the 12 000-60 000 bp range. In my own view, 2000bp to 2700bp will still have carbon dates in the same "ballpark" just as you are confirming. As we get closer to 3000bp the discrepancies become emphasized until they are way out by 4000bp. Which of course is BS, blind assertion and nonsense. It is interesting that you have dropped the 11-12 argument, but the rest of that is just blather.
You are introducing new arguments here before we have completed or summarized our current discussions. I prefer Rohl's revised chronology which reveals large discrepancies in the mainstream Egyptian chronology. If you correct all the mainstream chronologies in favor of more logical chronologies in each case, we get a more logical consilience in accordance with the much stronger magnetic field in early history. ie the 10% adjustment to carbon dates is illogical compared to the 50% change in magnetic field strength in mainstream chronology. If we calibrate the timeframes according to the corrected history, we compress the timeframes, and then the carbon ratios align better with the magnetic field changes 4125Bp is your date. Rohl's chronology compresses recent history after he showed evidence that two Egyptian king lists were concurrent rather than consecutive. Regarding dendrochronology you need to align recent White Mountain BCP trees with recent European chronology to make your point. What you prefer is immaterial, what the evidence shows in in agreement with Shaw and from what you say it invalidates your pet chronology. And if you are going to introduce rabbit hole after rabbit hole, you have no complaint to my providing more and more information that shows your initial premises are false.
Yes you have the monsoon season, but trees in monsoon areas often have multiple rings. http://geoinfo.nmt.edu/...dicals/earthmatters/13/EMv13n1.pdf Multiple rings that are easy to identify when you known what you are doing.
quote: They identified the extra rings, and did not confuse them with annual rings as you keep asserting/thinking happens. Your big problem is still the consilience of these dendrochronologies with each other and with historical events -- they match historical events precisely and accurately and they match each other ring for ring for over 8 thousand years with 99.5% accuracy and precision. Nit picking each chronology, inventing extra rings here and there doesn't explain the matches. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : add Edited by RAZD, : img sizeby 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: |
WOW! I have asked you repeatedly to show me proof of recent cross-checking with WHITE MOUNTAIN Bristlecone Pine trees and you answer with a link about Colorado Bristlecone Pine Trees. Unfortunately this failure of yours so far is ruining your argument. You may not understand why but your failure to focus on the White Mountain 1816 drought tree rings ruins your objection to multiple annual rings on the White Mountain BCP trees, and ruins your argument that other trees do not have multiple rings when they undergo dryer weather conditions like the White Mountains. No, your failure to understand that the Bristlecone pine chronology includes more than just the white mountain pines -- it includes other areas. You wanted evidence of 1816 and you got it. I said it was in the Bristlecone pine tree rings and it is. That it is not documented in a tree or grove you decide to question is you grabbing at straws and running down rabbit holes.
OF course the Colorado trees would cross-check with European trees that have wetter weather, I agree on the annual nature of the Colorado tree rings as per your link: Then you have a problem, as those trees are also part of the Bristlecone pine chronology program. You are dealing with the same dendrochronologist -- LaMarche -- in both areas.
Despite many many posts, and numerous copy and pastes I feel this argument is making no progress due to you failing to actually discuss my objections. You are flooding the thread with a lot of irrelevant links and posts. What I am 'flooding' you with is additional information that substantiates and supports my argument. No I am not going to follow your rabbit holes in ever tightening circles. You don't like 1816 then look at 536, you don't like 536 then look at 44BCE. But you also need to explain why all three are correlated with the dendrochronologies and why all three chronologies are consilient. If data matches from different sources then we can have high confidence that they are both reporting real effects ... in this case real calendar age.
More statements without evidence. I asked for your evidence that dolomite will retain moisture throughout summer and this is your reply? Not convincing at all. Wood does not grow when the water supply runs out, the onus is on you to show me that the tree or the soil retains enough moisture to grow when there is absolutely no water supply. Which I HAVE supplied. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it disappear. See post above Message 80quote: Note the only month without snow is August, and the highest rainfall is in July. When I combine the data in Fig 4 and Fig 7 to match the respiration and photosynthesis to the moisture level for those 6 measurements made at weekly intervals I get:
From this graph you can see that the ability of the Bristlecone pine in these conditions is not severe enough to stress the tree sufficiently to form a stress band: the cell size may get smaller, but respiration and photosynthesis proceed, so growth continues. You don't have the time, you don't have the climate, and you don't have sufficient drought to cause stress rings in the trees And you can see from the table that other years would be similar. This would be typical for the trees growing near the tree line on dolomite.
Average precipitation per month? per rainfall? Which chart are you referring to you, The one showing rainfall further east of the tree locations, so it would still be in the rain shadow. It is obviously quite different from yours which were on the wet side of the mountains. You now have a table for a ten-year period (1953-1962) at White Mt. 1 (Crooked Creek Laboratory), -- that is right in the area where the trees grow, and it confirms what I said before.
I'm referring to the White Mountain Bristlecone Pines, the alleged oldest trees on earth. These trees are unique compared to say Colorado Bristlecone Pines that have more moisture. Which known date is tied into the White Mountain Bristlecone Pines? Please provide evidence or stop claiming that these trees are so old. (you really need to support your claims, dolomite soil is your only argument so far, your weather claims support my position). Your short summer growing season argument ruined your spring melt growing season argument, and so your own dissonance is starting to agree with my position. (a growing season of tiny intermittent summer rainfalls has been my claim all along, you seem to now agree with me and seem to have abandoned your once off spring melt argument)Glad you think that -- some progress maybe. Boy you are getting desperate grabbin at those rabbit holes. Spring is relative, coming late (July) at high altitudes, summer is short, and fall is early (September). Why should I stop claiming the age of these trees when the evidence is obvious and you have provided no rational reason to think they are not that old. Not only are they well documented and well studied and compared to the other chronologies, but the Bristlecone pine chronology is composed of many other Bristlecone pines, including ones from Colorado, that also agree with them.
Ancient cross-matching supports my position IF you are unable to prove recent cross-matching. Which I have.
Regarding your proof of storage of water, as you quoted: Home | The Canopy Database Project "Whole tree transpiration can be maintained with stored water for about a week, but it can be maintained with stored water from the upper crown alone for no more than a few hours." Just one week of storage... this supports my argument. You need proof of this storage. Maybe they have adapted by using up the moisture more rapidly and then going dormant. You need to present your evidence how BCP trees store water more than other trees, maybe they survive because they do not store, but more easily survive dormancy between growth. Which only applies when there is complete absence of water ... which is not the case ... And different trees have different responses.
And the trees still grow on the dolomite through the whole growing season without and drought stress because they are still able to draw water from the dolomite. This diagram shows respiration and photosynthesis occurring while the water drops, and it shows the water dropping but not stopping.
Once again I asked you for evidence. I'm getting nothing except a fictional diagram. I wish dendrochronology was so accurate, but frankly it is not. Rohl an Egyptologist points out on page 489 of his book "A test of time" that the SAME tree can cross match 3 times with another sequence with a match within the range of acceptability to dendrochronologists. (incorrect matching sequences can have a higher match value than accepted matched sequences - t-values of 4 or 5) Another shyster? http://plagueofmice.anarchic-teapot.net/...il-a-test-of-time You can always tell when something like this is made up and not fact when phrases like "acceptable to dendrochronologists" are not substantiated by actually quoting and actual dendrochronologist saying it nor identifying who was used to make such a claim. Obviously that is why your Rohl is also wrong about the age of the tombs - he must love making stuff up for you. Hope you didn't buy the book new or paid full price for it. Your big problem is still the consilience of these dendrochronologies with each other and with historical events -- they match historical events precisely and accurately and they match each other ring for ring for over 8 thousand years with 99.5% accuracy and precision. Nit picking each chronology, inventing extra rings here and there doesn't explain the matches. Consilience proves you wrong. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : image sizeby 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 have asked for confirmation of 1816 CE impact on Bristlecone pine and I showed you where LaMarche had found frost rings in Bristlecone pines, and I showed you that there were matching narrow rings in the oaks. Now you ask for evidence in one subset of the Bristlecone pine and I suppose next you'll ask for the evidence in one specific tree.
![]() You haven't commented on the evidence in 536 CE and 44 BCE that also shows up in the tree rings in the Bristlecone pine and Irish oak chronologies. You have argued that the consilience between organic artifacts and Egyptian history at 2660+/-40 BCE, is because both are wrong by identical amounts. You argued that the climate in three different locations matched by some mysterious miracle and I showed you records of climate differences that did not affect the annual ring production. You have argued that climate was different in the past and that this cause chronology problems with false rings mistaken for annual rings, and I showed you the tree chronology actually documents the weather patterns involved because they are accurate in time as well as indicators of climate. You have argued that all chronologies were water sensitive at different times but magically match to each other, that they bunch up and stretch out like inch-worms or slinkies ... You have argued that the consilience between Bristlecone pine and the oak chronologies is because both are wrong at different times yet still miraculously match to 99.5% accuracy because dendrochronologists make rampant mistakes, are incompetent at identifying false rings, and just fumble along blindly. You have argued that Bristlecone pines have been growing rampant extra rings in recent years (due likely to misreading a paper on the growth of thicker rings due to CO2 and I have shown you a document that recent cores taken 18 years after a previous set of cores on the same trees had 18 recent rings in most of the samples, with some having 17 rings, showing that there were no extra rings and that missing rings are somewhat common (as I have argued). You have argued that Colorado Bristlecone pines are different from White Mountain Bristlecone pines, but the dendrochronologist that found the frost rings for 1816 is the same one that recored the original trees and demonstrated the accurate and precise recent growth. You have argued that the climate at the upper ranges causes multiple stress rings that are mistaken for annual rings, and I have shown you that the growing season is too short for this, that the dolomite buffers the trees against the few short dry spells by storing water, that most of the water is available as snow melt and I've shown you a table of actual data taken over a 10 year period from a meteorological station within the Bristlecone growing area: Let me add a column for totals to that table just to show you that what I have argued is based on fact:
TABLE 2.-Climatic summary for Crooked Creek Laboratory, 1953-1962 (Pace, 1963)
Oh snap! that's 12.5" of water average for 10 years with 10" as snow -- that's 80% as snow ... Note that spring in the mountains would be in July and this would be when the snow melts, and that this is the month with the greatest rainfall ... about 1/2 of the total rainfall occurs in July ... so you have a wet spring with ~90% of the available water in July, followed by a dry month of summer with an occasional light rain in August before the snows start again in September. I have shown you a combination of actual measurements of soil moisture, respiration and photosynthesis combined into one graph (taking respiration and photosynthesis values from Fig 7 for the moisture levels shown in Fig 4) to demonstrate 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:
This shows 5 weeks at the center of the growing season and that the growth continues for the whole period. Taking the values for July 30, 1962 as 100% of typical normal moisture, (based on the table of weather data with July being the wettest month), 100% of typical normal respiration and 100% of typical normal photosynthesis levels we get:
These values are approximations from reading off the graphs in Fig 4 and Fig 7. None of these values are below 50% of spring growth. Cell growth would only stop for winter, when the water supply is frozen, thus making distinctive annual rings. This would theoretically apply to saplings with root depths of 20 cm (8") or less -- the mature trees have much deeper roots and would access water at greater depths. Have I missed anything? There comes a time when you need to stop spinning your wheels and move forward. The tree ring chronologies are accurate and precise, they all are counted on annual rings, they all match for climate variations and historical markers, and they show that the earth is older than 12,473 years as of 2013 CE (12,410 BP - before 1950 - or 10,460 BCE). When we come to 14C decay and age dating we can return to the dendrochronologies ... because each one has had measurements of the 14C/12C levels and - surprise - they are also consilient and match ring for ring with 99.5% accuracy and precision, including the wiggles in the 14C/12C values that are due to periodic cycles like sunspot activity -- something that would not occur with your inch-worm/slinkie scenario. It is time to move forward and look at Lake Suigetsu varves, starting with their consilience with the dendrochronologies. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : sp Edited by RAZD, : add Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : ... Edited by RAZD, : add Edited by RAZD, : added table Edited by RAZD, : clrtyby 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:
|
Not that I am complaining ... I just want to point out posts you have not answered in case you missed them:
You might want to read through them all before answering as some of it is repetitive. Now you have a lot on your plate, and I can wait for you to catch up, particularly if you take the time to compile your replies and group them according to topic, ![]() Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : addby 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:
|
... The varves in question are very tiny, hardly detectable layers of a few mm each. You need more evidence before you state that the varves are too thick to form quickly. Not the point -- the clay layers only form independent of the diatom layers when there has been months without diatom deposition.
The applicable spring tides would be those that overlap the diatom bloom, which normally occur in spring/summer, so the very nature of all the evidence put forward, is that there is regular silting interrupted by regular spring tide die-offs during the diatom bloom. All the evidence has already been put forward, if you doubt any of these facts I will present the evidence again that diatoms bloom seasonally (not the whole year) , that spring tides affect the water table with salt water, that salt water kills freshwater diatoms, that Lake Suigetsu is located in the type of close proximity to the sea which is always affected by the sea's salt water table. You have presented the evidence that the silting is regular and not intermittent, that fact also contributes towards my argument that diatom die-offs would interrupt the regular silting of the lake whenever the bloom experiences a spring tide. This would result in layered density of diatom remains in the silt. Let's put this to bed.
Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology quote: Again we see volcano dating validating the varve layers, again we see that there is a strong seasonal signal and that even multiple blooms would make a single diatom layer.
Varve Counting quote: Two different layers with different characteristics that occur on an annual basis. No Cl or Na in the sediment layer.
Pollen quote: Pollen doesn't fall in winter. Another indicator that they are annual varves. The lake level is currently near ocean level, but would have been higher in the past with lower sea levels. These lower levels are well known, and have occurred within the time of the varve formation. At the time of the link to the German oak and pine chronology the level would have been below that of Lake Suigetsu. Next, IF any sea water HAD intruded into the lake the composition of the clay layer would be altered chemically.
Settling Rates of Clay in Salt Water quote: Salt water acts as a flocculant for clay colloids, making large clumps that settle fast, and that have chemical differences from the non-flocculated clay. This would, of course, include Sodium, Na, in the clumps, which was not detected ... This process would cause fast deposition of a very thick layer of clay, which is not observed, another indication that no such influx occurred. In addition, salt water is heavier than fresh water (specific gravity 1.03) so it would stay at the bottom of this lake -- if it did intrude ...
Diatoms quote: So IF any sea water HAD intruded into the lake you would have diatom die-off AND big clumps of flocculated clay in the same layer, a different profile than what is observed. In other words, they would KNOW if this had happened, and there is no evidence that it did happen. This argument is dead. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : link 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:
|
I'm doing no such thing. I am asking you to prove that White Mountain Bristlecone pines are really as old as you claim and I have no hidden agendas: You are grasping at straws. Your following statements demonstrate this.
a) You can do so by showing me that their chronology recently co-incides with actual historical events (1816). You have not done so. I have. 1816 CE, 536 CE, 44 BCE 2660 BCE ... Please note that I originally said that there was evidence of 1816 in Bristlecone pines -- and I showed you that information. You asking for validation in another clump of trees is (a) ignoring the evidence, (b) grabbing at straws, and (c) running down rabbit holes. The trees studied by LaMarche are part of the Bristlecone pine chronology, something he actually worked on. He found frost rings for 1816 in many trees -- enough to show that the climate was significantly colder that year, as documented in history. That is evidence of 1816 in Bristlecone pines.
b) You can do so by proving to me that they continually grow throughout the growing season through retaining moisture, or through the soil retaining moisture. Your answers have been grasping at straws with no definite facts. I have provided you with sufficient information that shows how the dolomite enables growth, even for saplings, in weather typical on a 10 year record. In addition I have noted a study by LaMarche -- again -- where he recored many trees that were included in the original chronology, 18 years after the original cores. He found 18 rings in most trees, 17 rings in some and no trees with extra rings. These trees with the 18 and 17 rings also demonstrate without a doubt that the trees were able to survive every year of that 18 year period. If anything there was an indication that the weather is occasionally too harsh to grow a full ring and so they find missing rings, not extra rings.
Without that evidence (1816) shown in well studied trees, we have the likelihood that certain weather patterns can create multiple rings. This likelihood can apply to other regions as well during differing ancient weather patterns. Or we could have cows flying to the moon. You have absolutely zero evidence of Bristlecone pines growing extra rings in these high altitude environment. The only "evidence" you have is a known shyster forcing a second growth period and then claiming he found extra annual rings ... in San Fransisco ...
This is not an ad hoc argument, but has been my argument all along. ... Ad hoc means made up. You have no evidence, you made it up, it is wrong.
... I wonder why you have not yet presented your evidence of 1816 in White Mountain trees yet, your failure to do so speaks volumes. You keep saying you have presented your evidence, ... You keep rejecting it. The evidence is there. Rabbit holes.
... yet your evidence shows a loose consilience thousands of years ago with no recent consilience at all. Your evidence shows a recent consilience with Colorado trees, which is irrelevant to white Mountain trees. All three dendrochronologies match ring for ring from their latest date, anchored in known tree ring recorded from trees at absolutely known dates. They are consilient within 100% for thousands of years of absolute agreement. They are consilient within 99.5% to 7600 BP. This would not be the case if what you said were true. It seems you don't understand what consilience means. 100% accuracy and precision means that each ring for the first two thousand years agrees with those same rings in the other chronologies -- every one -- for the changes in climate measured by band width. It means that the same pattern of agreement occurs to 7600BP with an error of only 0.5%. Every ring in each chronology, which are composed of many trees that also agree with one another. This consilience means that (a) they are annual rings, and (b) there has been no local disturbance that has affected one chronology without affecting the others. They are all absolute chronologies.
Make up your mind, is it a 6 to 8 week summer growing season ... or a spring melt growing season? You are the only one saying 6 to 8 ... the weather pattern is very clear from the 10 year record taken in the Bristlecone pine forest ...
quote: This reflects exactly what I have been saying: spring melt occurs in July, there is little rain in the summer - August - and fall comes in September. Its a short season due to the elevation.
Once again your evidence supports my position. The evidence presented shows that Bristlecone Pine trees require dolomite soil in those dry conditions because it preserves moisture, but even the dolomite soil was "below the wilting coefficient on only two dates" ... Below the 15 atm point. They also talked about how this point was passed with the saplings ...There are several things involved here:
... ie in late summer of 1962 over just 5 weeks, in the growing season, even the dolomite soil had insufficient water to support growth on two separate occasions. ... First it did NOT say that Second this is you grasping at straws. Third the saplings studied continued to grow at moisture levels below what was observed, demonstrating that the 15 atm PWP was inaccurate,
Growth did not stop at those moisture levels recorded. It was slowed but it did not stop.
Wilting coefficient is "the level of soil moisture at which water becomes unavailable to plants and permanent wilting ensue" And seeing as that did NOT occur for the saplings, it is blindingly obvious that FIELD PWP was not reached ...
Soils, Permanent Wilting Points quote: The saplings were still respiring and still photosythesizing, so the conditions for FIELD PWP were not observed. The more mature trees would be even more capable of surviving those low moisture levels due to having deep roots.
Point made! Thanks for the info. Failure to understand is not an argument.
You have shown me that the trees do not have enough moisture to grow continuously. False.
Figure 4 shows that moisture went below 6.4% on two occasions, EVEN IN THE DOLOMITE SOIL. You article states "Photosynthesis was SEVERELY DEPRESSED at a soil moisture level between 8 and 6%" This means that merely in the late summer, these Bristlecone pines although they continued to RESPIRATE (breathe) went through 2 periods of SEVERE DEPRESSION in photosynthesis in the dolomite soil. Yes, and "SEVERELY DEPRESSED" does not mean stopped, ended, finished, caput, it just means that it slowed down. This would result in smaller cell growth but not the cessation of cell growth. Notice that this does not meet the definition of PWP.
What your graph does not show is that the dips represent depressed photosynthesis on two occasions in only 5 weeks of 1962 that are so depressed as to be below the level at which moisture is available to plants, and permanent wilting ensues. False.
As you can see respiration and photosynthesis do not fall below 50% of the levels for 30July 1962. This graph would theoretically indicate the effect on cell growth size, slowed, smaller, but not stopped, not wilted.
RAZD you first have to provide evidence that those are annual rings to make claims about the age of these trees. All your evidence is starting to sound increasingly hollow, your evidence is actually supporting my view. Once you have put forward a strong case for annual rings, then it would be mature to use the accepted dates for these trees, until then its premature to use these dates as any form of factual support for your position that they are actually that old. Which I have done. Denial of evidence is not an argument, making stuff up is not an argument. Not understanding the vast amount of evidence provided by 100% year by year consilience between three entirely distinct chronologies from three distinct locations on the earth for over 2000 years and the 99.5% consilience back to 7600 BP does not mean that the evidence is not provided. Markers in tree rings for historical events CONFIRM that they are annual rings. All you are doing is hand waving denial. Classic cognitive dissonance behavior.
Your link uses carbon dating to date those trees up to 3535 BC. (circular reasoning) ... How do you get that? Misreading again?
... I was kinda hoping you would show 1816 in the White Mountain tree rings. Message 73 does not focus on BCP Trees in the White Mountains and their recent chronology. Hope all you want -- that dog don't hunt anymore The information is available you just need to read it.
I found this very interesting. Can you give me a link please? That's the closest I've come so far to finding one publicly available. It's the same paper as your previous comment ... I have contacted one of the authors to see if they will send me a copy of these two papers: LaMarche, V.C. Jr., Hirschboek, K.K., Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions, Nature 307, 1984 p121-126 and LaMarche Jr, V.C. and Harlan, T.P., Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 78 nr 36, 1973, p 8849—8858,
Its not so precise: Sadly I don't think you understand how precise it is. These chronologies have been extensively studied by the scientists working on the IntCal calibrations and they have very high standards for accuracy and precision, as evidenced by IntCal98 using the German oak and Bristlecone pine chronologies while excluding the Irish oak chronology due to a discrepancy of 41 years at ~8,000 years age, and then IntCal04 using a corrected German oak and pine chronology and the Irish chronology and rejecting the Bristlecone pine chronology due to a discrepancy of 37 years at ~8,000 years of age. 37 years is 0.5% error and that was too much for their needs. They ran checks on the data to confirm their accuracy and precision.
Another shyster.
The consilience is from the premature acceptance of carbon dates, which are out by the same factor as Th-Ur dating (the difference is about 10% due to carbon production changing during the strong magnetic field). Nope. The consilience actually has nothing to do with carbon dates. However here is something for you to consider: Whatever the decay rate is, two organic objects from the same time will have the same 14C/12C ratio. They will have it on the day the carbon is absorbed -- in this case by trees in the Sierra Nevada, Ireland and Germany -- and incorporated into the growth of the object -- in this case tree rings in those three locations. Day by day, year by year, decade by decade, the 14C in each of the tree rings from the same date will decay the same amount, whether the decay rate is hyper-fast or dead slow or varies all over the map ... the result will be the same in each chronology. They will today have the same proportion of 14C/12C in each of the three chronologies from that date. This holds true for each and every ring formed in the whole chronology for each location. So we can compare tree ring age, climate, and 14C/12C levels between each of the chronologies, and if any one of those is out of whack we know there has been an error. No such error has been found for the first 2000 years and there is only 0.5% error between all three sets at ~8000 BP Then there are the cycles in production of 14C in the atmosphere, 11 years for solar cycles, 14 years for earths magnetic cycles and others. The 14C 'age' calculation is based on an exponential formula and the 1/2 life of 5730 years:
Nf = No (1/2)^(t/5730) Nf = 14C/12C todayNo = 14C/12C on day 1 t = time since day 1 So we can use dendro age for t and solve for the theoretical No level:
No = Nf/(1/2)^(t/5730) When we do this for the tree ring data we see peeks and valleys just as expected for the solar/magnetic cycles ... just like the ticking of a clock and regular as a heart beat. This is a fourth set of data from just the tree rings that demonstrates the consilience and the age.
Floating tree ring chronologies are tied in with other chronologies using low T-values (4-6) instead of high T-values (1-3) based on approximate carbon dating of the floating tree sequence. The Bristlecone pine, the Irish oak and the German oak are all absolute chronologies extending back more than 8,000 years with only 0.5% error, they are not floating and they are not tied. Again, the evidence is overwhelming that these systems measure actual annual rings and actual calendar age, and denial of this fact is not an argument. To have an argument you need to demonstrate (not assert) with evidence (not hand waving) that each is wrong, what the cause is that still causes exactly the same pattern for climate, 14C/12C ratios, and No variations in each chronology at the same time. You have not even begun to do that. All your what ifs do not explain the very high consilience of these correlations, you have them going off at different times, at different rates, from different effects, just by assertion (no evidence of any of it actually happening), and then you just claim that they 'look' the same?
For every ring ... Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : clarity 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: |
I now have copies of these papers from three sources
![]() LaMarche, V. C. Jr. , Hirschboek, K. K. , Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions, Nature 307, 1984 p121-126 and LaMarche Jr, V. C. and Harlan, T. P. , Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, Journal of Geophysical Research vol 78 nr 36, 1973, p 8849—8858, message me with your email addy and I can send you copies. First:
Accuracy of tree ring dating of Bristlecone Pine for calibration of the radiocarbon time scale quote: This would seem to answer all of your questions and issues in regards to Bristlecone pines. Note that the 1884 date is found in both White Mountain Bristlecone pines and the Colorado pines by frost rings and correlated with a well documented cold season. Note that an error of 2 years in 5403 years is <0.04% error ... Again if you want a copy message me you e-mail address and I will send it to you. I will quote the other paper in a reply to this message (this is long enough) Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added quote to first paper Edited by RAZD, : .. Edited by RAZD, : subtitle Edited by RAZD, : error % Edited by RAZD, : . Edited by RAZD, : subtitleby 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: |
LaMarche, V. C. Jr. , Hirschboek, K. K. , Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions, Nature 307, 1984 p121-126
Frost Rings in Trees as Records of Major Volcanic Eruptions quote: Many correlated frost rings and volcanic eruptions provide additional evidence that the Bristlecone pine dendrochronology is accurate and precise. We can note that this additional cross-checking of tree samples covers a wide area and trees in four states - California, Nevada, Utah and Colorado, and that the two species of Bristlecone pine - Pinus longaeva and Pinus aristata - are used. We can add 1884 to the list and confirm that 1816 is on the list. We could add several more, but these suffice to demonstrate the accuracy in recent times. Enjoy Edited by RAZD, : sp\typoby 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