|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1660 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Your own link claimed that the dust settled regularly over the whole year. I don't see the relevance of the settling velocity for your argument, if the dust sinks slowly or fast, there is a regular amount of dust settling on the lake floor during the entire year. The only factor that changes the sediment density on the lake floor is the diatom die-offs because the dust is constant. We seem to be in agreement on this. Dust and clay layers between layers that are predominantly diatom shells, layers that took time to accumulate, so there is a distinct identifiable annual pattern.
So we are left with dust, pollen and the clay that makes it in from the Lake Mikata ... which all settle slowly No problem with this, it all suits my argument. So there is an annual pattern of deposition.
Yes, in low lying coastal regions the water table is dominated by salt water from the ocean. In spring tides, this would affect all lakes close to the ocean. This would kill freshwater diatoms who die when exposed to salt water. I have presented my evidence in earlier posts. I need your evidence that freshwater diatoms definitely CANNOT be affected by the rising salt water table in a lake next to the sea. I do not see that as a possibility, please tell me how its possible for the deepest freshwater algae during an algae bloom in Lake Suigetsu to survive regular influxes of salt water. First you provide evidence that these purported mechanisms actually work the way you claim and show that salt water did in fact actually enter Lake Suigetsu. Without such evidence this is just fantasy conjecture based on hope. Note three things: (1) salt water is denser than fresh water and so it would be at the bottom of the lake if it entered from the groundwater table -- where it would be under the freshwater lens (which is why islands in the oceans can have fresh water wells). This is basic hydrology, information used by engineers to find fresh water aquifers near oceans. (2) salt water combines with clay to form large fast settling flocs that lock the sodium in the flocks: no sodium has been found in the varves. This is basic soil chemistry. (3) until recent times the level of the ocean was significantly lower: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/
quote: Past, current and future sea level rise | My view on climate change
quote: Clearly at ~8,000 years ago when the Lake Suigetsu varve chronology starts the lake was ~15 meters above sea level and at ~12,000 years ago when the Preboral pine chronology ends it was ~60 meters above sea level and at ~15,000 years and older the lake was at least 100 meters above sea level. These three things combined make it rational to conclude that sea water had absolutely no effect on the diatom/clay cycle no matter how often the moon went around the earth. 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 1660 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Like I said before, its the very uniqueness of the locations used that are damning for evolutionary timeframes. ANY location would be better than Suigetsu. They did not take into account that diatoms have regular die-offs that are not always annual. Any study on Lake Suigetsu which claims that the lake shows annual layering should have gone into great depth to explain away the fact that algae does not often have just one annual die-off. Because Suigetsu is not a conclusive location, nearly anywhere else is a better location. Nearly every river on earth with a wide catchment area flows into a lake or the sea. There would be recognizable annual sedimentation layers in thousands of locations across earth .....and yet of all these locations the only places that seem to have consilience are ones with a strange set of circumstances like Lake Suigetsu. The rareness of the consilience is ridiculous. Curiously I find this argument to be completely unsupported by facts, and desperately clutching at straws, hardly worth a reply. Uniqueness of location would still have no effect on the data. This is a backwards post hoc ergo propter hoc type fallacy claiming that because they went to that unique location that therefore the data is false? And as I have already demonstrated there could be multiple die-offs of the diatoms and there would be no clay layer between them due to lack of time. Anyone who makes a claim of multiple die-offs causing false layers has the onus of proof to demonstrate that such actually occurs. The reason Lake Suigetsu was chosen was because it had a strong annual deposition.
It would be fascinating to dig down into nearly every lake on the planet, I predict you would find a strong trend that organic matter in annual layers in other lakes have way too little carbon for the annual layers in which they lie. Thus I predict that a definite 3500 year old layer in most lakes would show a 30 000 plus carbon date in a location that has more definite annual layers than the dodgy dates of Suigetsu. So go do it. My prediction is that you won't be able to discern one year from the next. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/circ1171/html/cores.htm
quote: Curiously no annual cores detected even though this is a fairly recent reservoir ... how could they have missed those easy to see layers ... http://polarfield.com/blog/tag/lake-cores/
quote: Again they failed to see the annual layers that would have made dating the cores so easy ... how did they miss that common information? Perhaps you should contact these people and volunteer to help them with their dating techniques ...
3) Recent volcanic eruptions with historically verified dates like Towado and Aso do NOT have a decent match with Lake Suigetsu (no ash layers indicated),
Oh too bad, guess we'll just chuck the whole thing, eh? Or you could look at climate patterns and see if it should have made a deposition rather than just make it up? Sure, there is no reason to expect every volcanic eruption to deposit ash in Lake Suigetsu, especially if the prevailing winds were going a different direction. You also need to demonstrate that these eruptions produced ash - not all do - during the periods of the varves Towada Volcano, Honshu (Japan) - Facts & Information
quote: So that would not be in the cores (too recent) Aso Volcano, Kyushu (Japan) - Facts & Information | VolcanoDiscovery
quote: So that would not be in the cores (too long ago) and not historical documentation ...
... . It was the location of Japan's first documented historical eruption in 553 AD. ... So that would not be in the cores (too recent). You can't just pick layers and say it must be 'x' volcano -- you need evidence that is consistent with that claim -- each volcano has different elements in it that act like a signature that identifies the volcanoes. Curiously, moving the varves to arbitrarily match one of these volcano eruptions with a tephra deposit (typical creation science approach?) would still not affect the slope of the curve and thus would not have a significant effect on dates ... it does not change the slope of the curve.
Yes the carbon dates after about 1800 bp would have to be recalibrated. The recent historical dates are recorded in Japanese literature and need no adjustment whatsoever. Ah yes bogus assumed correlations based on an absence of actual objective empirical evidence and a lot of wishful thinking are better than science any day ... Curiously your dates would not mean that "carbon dates after about 1800 bp would have to be recalibrated" because your proposed preposterous assignment of two tephra layers to post AD eruptions would mean 14C would be invalid for those dates ... ... we KNOW this is not the case from the other volcano data and the tree rings (you known those rings you could not show any error in their process and AGREED with their historical agreement). So no, this is not any valid criticism, it is just made up fantasy.
quote 20. The floating German pine chronology was itself anchored to the absolute oak dendrochrology primarily through wiggle-matching 14C variations, but also through matching ring-width patterns. Uncertainty in the absolute pine age is reported conservatively at +/-20 years to account for the relatively short period of overlap ( Haha the floating German pine chronology? Matched through carbon dating?? ... Recognise the circular reasoning????? Oh well.....rather just keep to the so-called absolute oak dendrochronology from now. Through both matching ring widths and 14C variations for the period of the overlap. Note that this is not using 14C ages but the actual levels of 14C in the samples, the levels they have today. Curiously this is objective empirical evidence that has nothing to do with 14C age, it is no different than recording the 14C levels in the atmosphere today. And again you don't understand circular reasoning. For times A to B we have annual rings from the oak chronology, for times B to C we have a period of overlap of oak annual rings and pine annual rings, for times C to D we have annual rings from the pine chronology, so we use the annual rings from A to C from the oak chronologies to match 14C data against and then we have the annual rings from the pine chronology from C to D to match 14C data against ... Where is the circle? And why is there such a good match for the period B to C? if it were just a random match at one end why would the other end match at all?
And you want to use it to corroborate carbon dating... hehe Nope. The fact that you fail to understand what is going on does not make the science invalid, it just demonstrates your ignorance and misunderstanding of fairly simple concepts.
Every spot on earth receives seasonal weather patterns. Its damning to carbon dating that only a few locations corroborate carbon dating. Even if you had 20 this would be damning. If you had about 10 000 locations this would make a convincing case. I don't find your consilience argument strong at all, in fact the dearth of corroborating locations and the need to find a strange set of circumstances before there is consilience is in fact embarrassing. Again, you are free to provide evidence of all these other locations. Just making them up is not evidence, you need to document it. Can you give me a link to one -- especially one that does not match the current ones I have extensively documented? If you are going to assert something the onus is on you to provide evidence. Currently I see absolutely no reason to think that there is anything wrong with the annual tree rings and the annual varves discussed to date, as you have failed to present any evidence of error or mistakes.
The varves in Cariaco basin are created by....... guess what....... algae/diatoms. But the uniqueness of this location is that its a uniquely anoxic ocean, and these are anoxic diatoms. Their die-off are caused by nitrate and silicon cycles. School of the Earth, Ocean & Environment - School of the Earth, Ocean & Environment | University of South Carolina Ah, no. The layers used in Cariaco Basin are alternating layers of foraminifera and sediment ... so once again you provide irrelevant information.
As for tree ring chronologies, the older "floating chronologies" are anchored to "known dates". How else would they date a floating chronology?? These known dates are nearly always related to carbon or Th-Ur dating. (frost rings of known volcanic eruptions). ... No. Really you should read the information provided so you don't make foolish statements. Ignorance is not amusing. An anchored chronology is anchored by a known date, in the case of tree rings they start with the date a core is taken from a living tree. That date is the anchor. When a floating chronology is tethered to an anchored chronology then there is a degree of uncertainty in the match no matter how good it is, because the absolute chronology can be modified by new information (see the change to the German chronology with the beetle infestation) and the floating chronology would move with any corrections to the anchored chronology. It could also be fine tuned by additional information in the floating chronology. This happened with the Preboral pine chronology. Your continued assertions regarding U/Th dating is curious because the margin of error in U/TH is much greater than the margin of error for tree rings and they only serve to show that the tree ring dates are in the right ball park rather than correct the dendrochronology.
... When the older chronologies are joined to earlier chronologies it is with unreliable techniques using low probability matching sequences. Even these low probability sequences show up as 99.5% matching according to their techniques which show that the percentages themselves are unreliable. Again, all you have is innuendo based on a sketchy knowledge of the field, you fail to see that multiple samples are used not just one on one matches and thus your criticism is irrelevant. This is demonstrated by the multiple agreement of dendrochronologies over thousands of years. And which fails to invalidate the consilience between different systems coming to the same results ... again ...
Message 113: Thus it would be mind boggling amazing for these two chronologies to match over such an extended period of time ... if it were not for the probability that they are actually measuring the same thing, where the probability expected would be 1 or close enough to be in the margin of error ... If you had three people independently measuring the time between two passages of the earth between the sun and Arcturus, would you be amazed if they came in with results within a second or two of each other? If they use different watches should the results vary? Each watch can have different accuracy and precision ... should the results fall within the margins of error or should they vary wildly? 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 1660 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
The varves in Cariaco basin are created by....... guess what....... algae/diatoms. But the uniqueness of this location is that its a uniquely anoxic ocean, and these are anoxic diatoms. Their die-off are caused by nitrate and silicon cycles. School of the Earth, Ocean & Environment - School of the Earth, Ocean & Environment | University of South Carolina Which curiously shows an annual pattern ... but that is still not the foraminifera layer information ... ... I trust you won't argue that these are due to spring tides flooding the basin. The Cariaco basin varves have been used to make a floating marine varve chronology, with diatoms alternating with sediments in an strongly discernable annual deposition pattern. These sediments were used in developing calibration curves for IntCal98 and IntCal04:
IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP(1)
quote: Not much about the varves, but we can look at the 2000 paper referenced for more information:
(full PDF) or on-line at Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation(2)
quote: Note that Fig 1 shows how the floating varve chronology was tethered to the German Preboral pine chronology using 14C/12C levels as markers (see Message 112 re tethering with markers), and that the match is very accurate (r=0.989, where r=1 would be an exact match). In note 20 of the paper it talks about the accuracy and precision of this match in greater detail:
quote: The error at the end of the combined European oak chronology is +/-5 years (there is a 10 year difference between the German and Irish chronologies). So the German pine chronology is tethered to the German oak with a maximum error of +/-(5+20) years at ~11,900 calendar years or +/-0.21% error, and the maximum error of the Cariaco Basin chronology is +/-(5+20+10) years, or +/-35 years. Note as well how this information correlates with climate changes, as shown by the tree chronologies before. The reference to magnetic field strength is applicable as this affects the production of 14C, as we shall see later. The chronology was updated in 2004 with improved matches to the dendrochronologies and some revisions to the varve chronology:
Cariaco Basin calibration update: revisions to calendar and 14C chronologies for core(3)
quote: This chronology runs from 10,490 BP to 14,673 BP (last data point in data table 1), and is tethered to the Preboral pine chronology from 10,490 BP to 12,410 BP, or an overlap of 1,920 years with 375 data points listed in table 1. Now it may seem that the consilience between the dendrochronology and the Cariaco Basin varves is forced by intentionally matching one to the other, and this argument would be valid if there were only one or two points used for matching them up ... but there are hundreds of points from the Cariaco Basin varves that match the wiggle patterns of the German pine chronology and the wiggles matched are not linear: there are small wiggles imposed on a larger wiggle pattern. Matching both the large and small scale wiggles with this number of points would be unexpected if they didn't measure the same thing -- actual 14C levels for those ages. This is a longer and better match than the original, where the match had an r value of 0.989. This updated match is shown in Fig 5 above, demonstrating what would be astonishing accuracy if they were totally independent random sequences that just happened to correlate: this consilence is strong validation that these two methods measure the same thing -- annual calendar age.
14C activity and global carbon cycle changes over the past 50,000 years(4)
quote: This chronology runs from 10,490 BP to 14,673 BP, and is tethered to the Preboral pine chronology between 10,490 BP and 12,410 BP, or an overlap of 1,920 years with 375 data points, and the overall maximum error from the modern end of the European oak chronology in 2002 to the ancient end of the Cariaco Basin in varve chronology in is +/-35 years in 14,725 years of annual records, an error of +/-0.24%. This extends our knowledge of the age of the earth based on annual counting mechanisms from 12,410 BP (10,460 BCE) to 14,673 BP or 12,723 BCE, another 2,263 years with high accuracy and precision. This also introduces ice cores, and radiometric dating systems, which will be discussed later, and the use of proxies to show climate and magnetic field fluctuation effects.
The earth is at least 14,736 years old (2013) The minimum age for the earth is now at least 14,736 years old (2013), based on the highly accurate and precise varve counting system, strong correlation r-factor and with an error of 0.24%. This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have disturbed or buried the varves or their process of deposition. 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 start of annual counting methods. Enjoy. References
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)
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024