The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 1)

Lake and Marine Varve Basics

First some definitions: Rhythmites⁽¹⁾

quote:

---

A rhythmite consists of layers of sediment or sedimentary rock which are laid down with an obvious periodicity and regularity. They may be created by annual processes such as seasonally varying deposits reflecting variations in the runoff cycle, by shorter term processes such as tides, or by longer term processes such as periodic floods.

---

Varves⁽²⁾

quote:

---

A varve is an annual layer of sediment or sedimentary rock.

​

Of the many rhythmites found in the geological record, varves are one of the most important and illuminating to studies of past climate change. Varves are amongst the smallest-scale events recognised in stratigraphy.

​

Varves form in a variety of marine and lacustrine depositional environments from seasonal variation in clastic, biological, and chemical sedimentary processes.

​

The classic varve archetype is a light / dark coloured couplet deposited in a glacial lake. The light layer usually comprises a coarser laminaset of silt and fine sand deposited under higher energy conditions when meltwater introduces sediment load into the lake water. During winter months, when meltwater and associated suspended sediment input is reduced, and often when the lake surface freezes, fine clay-size sediment is deposited forming a dark coloured laminaset.

---

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 quite dramatic contrasting layers.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. This is particularly effective when the dark sediment layer is a slow settling clay that takes months to form an undisturbed sediment layer. Synchroneity of Tropical and High-Latitude Atlantic Temperatures over the Last Glacial Termination⁽³⁾

quote:

---

---

With a well marked layering system, such as is shown above, the layers can be counted, just like tree rings, to form a chronology.Not all deposits are varves or rhythmites, as there can be many deposits that occur in random sequences with no discernable pattern or regularity. For example you can get volcanic ash (tuff) deposits mixed in with varves and rhythmites, and these may be correlatable to tuffs in other places to cross-check dates.The geological principle of superposition applies to varves, rhythmites and other sedimentary deposits: Principle of Superposition⁽⁴⁾

quote:

---

The law of superposition (or the principle of superposition) is a key axiom based on observations of natural history that is a foundational principle of sedimentary stratigraphy and so of other geology dependent natural sciences:

​

Sedimentary layers are deposited in a time sequence, with the oldest on the bottom and the youngest on the top.

---

Varves and rhythmites provide a means to identify different layers accurately and varves in particular can be used to provide dates for the layers. Rhythmites and other sedimentary layering do provide relative dating and other means are needed to provide actual ages. Similarly such other means for dating sediments can be used to validate and confirm a varve system. The sediments in Lake Lisan, for instance are not varves or rhythmites , and they used radiometric dating of aragonites matched with the sediment levels: Calibration of the 14C time scale to 440 ka by 234U—230Th dating of Lake Lisan sediments (last glacial Dead Sea) (abstract)⁽⁵⁾

quote:

---

A new comparison of 14C dates with 234U-230Th ages is presented of aragonites from Lake Lisan, the last Glacial Dead Sea, between ∼20 - 52 cal-ka-BP. T ...

---

As these are not annual layers we cannot use this information for determining a minimum age for the earth by annual counting (they are mentioned here because they show up in IntCal references for 14C calibration).Because varves are an annual time-sequence deposition process, 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 the physical limitations of the equipment, so 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 tethered by the artifact age. If markers in a floating chronology can be matched to markers in an absolute chronology, then the floating chronology can be tethered to the absolute chronology.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. Because the organic artifacts contain carbon that was taken up when living, they will have both 14C and 12C. As noted previously 14C decays over time, and thus the ratio of 14C/14C_(1950CE) in a sample changes with age (while the 12C content remains constant) and these samples can be used as markers to tether a floating chronology to an absolute chronology (like the tree rings).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. Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology⁽⁶⁾

quote:

---

To avoid the problem of false layers — non-annual rings — produced by floods or inconsistent seasonality, a location that is protected from large sediment influxes and exhibits a strong seasonal signal is ideal. Lake Suigetsu fits those requirements exceptionally well. For example, the Hasu River enters Lake Mikata where the sediments suspended in the river, even during a large flood, will fall out of the water column. The sediment-depleted water then flows through a narrow but shallow channel into Lake Suigetsu which is surrounded by high cliffs on all sides and has almost no input of water from the surrounding area. The result is that the waters of Lake Suigetsu have little suspended sediment and the surrounding walls limit the wind on its surface so the waters are not disrupted. Thus the center of the lake is extremely stable and unlikely to be disturbed by floods, large storms, etc

​

New input of sediments to the lake floor is derived primarily from material falling into the lake from the air (leaves, pollen, volcanic ash, dust) or from differential growth of organisms (algae) over the year. What is amazing about most of the varves of Lake Suigetsu is that as one moves down the cores retrieved from below the center of this lake, the varves formed in the past several hundred years for which climatic and lake-conditions are known look similar to those formed 10s of thousands of years ago. This provides researchers with increased confidence that the varves represent annual years and that the climatic influences on this lake in the past have been very similar to those of the present.

---

Dust and algae making alternate layers in location virtually undisturbed by flood and wind.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.There are more varve systems than the ones discussed here, but finding ones that can be anchored and extend beyond the ones used here is difficult. One well known floating varve system is the Green River varves: Green River Formation⁽⁷⁾

quote:

---

The Green River Formation is an Eocene geologic formation that records the sedimentation in a group of intermountain lakes in three basins along the present-day Green River in Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah. The sediments are deposited in very fine layers, a dark layer during the growing season and a light-hue inorganic layer in the dry season. Each pair of layers is called a varve and represents one year. The sediments of the Green River Formation present a continuous record of six million years. The mean thickness of a varve here is 0.18 mm, with a minimum thickness of 0.014 mm and maximum of 9.8 mm.[1]

---

The Green River varves are a floating chronology that has not been tethered to our other layer counting systems, and the total age of the layers has only been estimated from the thicknesses, and thus it can only be used as a relative age indication. Thus, regardless of how old the Green River varves are, we know the earth is a lot older than has been counted by annual layers thus far, but this is still only the start of annual counting methods.Enjoy.

---

References

1. Anon, Wikipedia.com (website), Rhythmite,[2013, November 29]: Rhythmite - Wikipedia
2. Anon, Wikipedia.com (website), Varves,[2013, November 29]: Varve - Wikipedia
3. Lea, D.W., Pak, D.K., Peterson, L.C., Hughen, K.A., Synchroneity of Tropical and High-Latitude Atlantic Temperatures over the Last Glacial Termination, Science Vol 301, Nr 5638, p 1361-1364, 5 September 2003 http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/lea2003/ (abstract)
4. Anon, Wikipedia.com (website), Principle of Superposition,[2013, November 29]: Law of superposition - Wikipedia
5. Schramm, A., Stein, M., Goldstein, S.L., Calibration of the 14C time scale to 440 ka by 234U—230Th dating of Lake Lisan sediments (last glacial Dead Sea), Earth and Planetary Science Letters vol 175, 2000 p 27—40 (abstract) http://www.sciencedirect.com/...rticle/pii/S0012821X99002794
6. Ray, J. W., Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology, Naturalis Historia (website), [14July20017]: Lake Suigetsu and the 60,000 Year Varve Chronology – Naturalis Historia
7. Wikipedia.com, Green River Formation,[2013, December 26]: Green River Formation - Wikipedia

Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : restructuredEdited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : addedEdited by RAZD, : correctedEdited by RAZD, : piclinkEdited by RAZD, : imgur pics

An Introduction to Sediment Deposition Rates

One of the things that affects rhythmite and varve formation is the sedimentation rates of different particles, and varves can have different layers with different size particles, some that settle faster than others: Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity⁽¹⁾

quote:

---

Every material has its own suspension and settling velocity. The suspension velocity is the speed of water above which the water will pick up the material and hold it in suspension. The settling velocity is the speed below which the material will be dropped out of suspension and will settle out of the water.

​

The relative sizes of gravel, sand, silt, and clay particles are shown below:

​

​

Sand and gravel are both large and dense. In addition, they have a small surface area per unit volume since they are roughly spherical. So these types of particles have a high suspension velocity.

---

13.6 Colloids⁽²⁾

quote:

---

When finely divided clay particles are dispersed throughout water, they do not remain suspended but eventually settle out of the water because of the gravitational pull. The dispersed clay particles are much larger than molecules and consist of many thousands or even millions of atoms.

---

Particle Size Analysis Lab⁽³⁾

quote:

---

The connection between particle size and settling rate is expressed by Stoke's Law. This relationship shows that small particles, those exposing high specific surface area (m2 g-1), produce more resistance to settling through the surrounding solution than large particles and, hence, settle at slower velocities

​

Stoke's Law: V = (D^{^2}g(d₁-d₂)/(18n)

​

The formula shows that the settling velocity, V, is directly proportional to the square of the particle's effective diameter, D; the acceleration of gravity, g; and the difference between the density of the particle, d1, and density of the liquid, d2; but inversely proportional to the viscosity (resistance to flow) of the liquid, n. The density of water and its viscosity both change in a manner so that particles settle faster with increased temperature. Hence, it may be necessary to apply temperature correction factors as explained with the procedure.

​

Stoke's Law can be condensed to V=kD^{^2} by assuming constant values for all components except the effective diameter of soil particles. Then, for conditions at 30 degrees C, k=11241. For particles size values in centimeters, the formula yields settling velocity, V, in centimeters per second. Because soil particles do not meet the requirements of being smooth spheres, exact conformance to Stoke's Law is not realized.

---

Soil Colloids⁽⁴⁾

quote:

---

The colloidal state refers to a two-phase system in which one material in a very finely divided state is dispersed through second phase.

​

The examples are:

​

Solid in liquid - Clay in water (dispersion of clay in water)
Liquid in gas -Fog or clouds in atmosphere

​

The clay fraction of the soil contains particles less than 0.002 mm in size. Particles less than 0.001 mm size possess colloidal properties and are known as soil colloids.

---

How big are clay particles? According to the standard ISO classification ofGrain Size⁽⁵⁾

quote:

---

ISO 14688-1:2002, establishes the basic principles for the identification and classification of soils on the basis of those material and mass characteristics most commonly used for soils for engineering purposes. ISO 14688-1 is applicable to natural soils in situ, similar man-made materials in situ and soils redeposited by people.[2]

​

Name	Size Range, mm
Clay	≤0.002

---

(Note just the clay size is extracted from the table in the above link, clays are the smallest category)If we use 0.002 mm (0.0002 cm) for clay in the above formula we getV = 11241(0.0002)^{^2} = 0.00044964 cm/s
= 1.62 cm/hr = 38.8 cm/day
= 15.3 in/day.This is the maximum settling velocity for clay (because the velocity is related to the square of the diameter, a clay particle half that diameter (0.001 mm) would settle at 1/4th that speed, or 3.8 in/day or slower due to colloidal interactions).As you can see the theoretical settling velocity of clay according to Stoke's Law would be very, very slow. In a 100 ft deep lake a new clay particle deposited at the surface and settling at maximum velocity would theoretically take ~80 days to reach the bottom. Actual times are significantly longer however, 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, like diatom or foraminifera shells, or disturbances of the water. These shell deposits can even peak several times in the growing months and not affect the varve layering.Enjoy.

---

References

1. Cooke, R. (website), Settling Velocity and Suspension Velocity, Mountain Empire Community College. 2013[2013, December 2] http://water.me.vccs.edu/concepts/velocitysusp.htm
2. Anon, Prenhall.com (website), 13.6 Colloids, Chemistry, Prentice Hall, Pearson Education 2002[2013, December 2] http://wps.prenhall.com/...objects/3312/3391718/blb1306.html
3. Farrel, P. (website), Particle Size Analysis Lab, Soil, Water, and Climate Dept, University of Minnesota, 2010-2013[2013, December 2] UMD: 404 Page Not Found
4. Anon, AgriInfo.in (website), Soil Colloids, Introduction to Soil Science, AgriInfo.in 2011[2013, December 2] Soil Colloids - agriinfo.in
5. Anon, Wikipedia.com (website), Grain size, International scale[2017, June 24], Grain size - Wikipedia

Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : restructuredEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : piclinkEdited by RAZD, : imgur pics

Cariaco Basin Varves

Off the coast of Venezuela are a series of varved deposits that form annual layers of foraminifera shells and soil runoff (sediment) from a river tributary to the basin. The layers are similar to tree rings in being annual and having different thicknesses due to climate factors that influence the growth of the foraminifera algae and the runoff sediment from the riverThe Cariaco basin varves have been used to make a floating marine varve chronology, with foraminifera tests alternating with sediments in a strongly discernible 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:

---

This paper focuses on the IntCal04 calibration data set for 14C ages of Northern Hemisphere terrestrial samples. However, because 14C measurements of foraminifera from the Cariaco Basin varved sediments and U-series-dated coral are the basis for the terrestrial calibration data set beyond the beginning of the tree rings at 12.4 kyr, we will discuss marine data in brief. ...

​

... The most significant changes (Figure 3c—e) are of course due to the extension of the German dendrochronology from 11.4 to 12.4 cal kyr BP (Friedrich et al., this issue), the new high-resolution Cariaco Basin data set from 10.5 to 14.7 cal kyr BP (Hughen et al., this issue b; Hughen et al. 2000), ...

---

Not much about the varves, but we can look at the 2000 paper referenced for more information: Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation (full PDF) or view on-line (with free sign-in)⁽²⁾

quote:

---

... Here we present 14C data from Cariaco Basin core PL07-58PC (hereafter 58PC), providing 10- to 15-year resolution through most of deglaciation. The new calibration data demonstrate conclusively that Δ14C changes were synchronous with climate shifts during the Younger Dryas. Calculated Δ14C is strongly correlated to climate proxy data throughout early deglaciation (r = 0.81). Comparing Δ14C and 10Be records leads us to conclude that ocean circulation changes, not solar variability, must be the primary mechanism for both14C and climate changes during the Younger Dryas.

​

Cariaco Basin core 58PC (1040.60′N, 6457.70′W; 820 m depth) has an average sedimentation rate (70 cm/kyr) more than 25% higher than core 56PC (1041.22′N, 6458.07′W; 810 m depth) (13, 14), and shares similar hydrographic conditions. Restricted deep circulation and high surface productivity in the Cariaco Basin off the coast of Venezuela create an anoxic water column below 300 m. The climatic cycle of a dry, windy season with coastal upwelling, followed by a nonwindy, rainy season, results in distinctly laminated sediment couplets of light-colored, organic-rich plankton tests and dark-colored mineral grains from local river runoff (13). It has been demonstrated previously that the laminae couplets are annually deposited varves and that light laminae thickness, sediment reflectance (gray scale), and abundance of the foraminifer Globigerina bulloides are all sensitive proxies for surface productivity, upwelling, and trade wind strength (14, 15). Nearly identical patterns, timing, and duration of abrupt changes in Cariaco Basin upwelling compared with surface temperatures in the high-latitude North Atlantic region at 1- to 10-year resolution during the past 110 years and the last deglaciation (7, 14, 15) provide evidence that rapid climate shifts in the two regions were synchronous. A likely mechanism for this linkage is the response of North Atlantic trade winds to the equator-pole temperature gradient forced by changes in high-latitude North Atlantic temperature (16).

​

The hydrography of the Cariaco Basin provides excellent conditions for 14C dating (17). The shallow sills (146 m depth) constrain water entering the basin to the surface layer, well equilibrated with atmospheric CO2. Despite anoxic conditions, the deep waters of the Cariaco Basin have a brief residence time, as little as 100 years (17). Two radiocarbon dates on G. bulloides of known recent calendar age gave the same surface water-atmospheric 14C difference (reservoir age) as the open Atlantic Ocean (7). Good agreement during the early Holocene and Younger Dryas between Cariaco Basin and terrestrial 14C dates, including German pines and plant macrofossils from lake sediments (1, 9, 11, 18) (Fig. 1), suggests that Cariaco Basin reservoir age does not change measurably as a response to increased local upwelling (i.e., during the Younger Dryas) (19). Planktonic foraminiferal abundance permits continuous sampling at 1.5-cm increments, providing 10- to 15-calendar-year resolution throughout most of deglaciation.

​

​

The anchored Cariaco Basin varve chronology provides radiocarbon calibration at high resolution from ∼14.8 to 10.5 cal kyr B.P. ...

​

REFERENCES AND NOTES

​

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 (

---

Again we see a remarkable consilience between the dendrochonology data and the varve data.The "reservoir age" correction mentioned above was discussed in Message 17, Wiggle-matching 14C levels to Anchored Dendrochronologies,If the reservoir effect is constant in time then this just results in a horizontal shift of the data to younger ages (average 400 years), and the actual amount is incorporated into the wiggle-matching of the varve data to the dendrochronological data. The high consilience between the two independent sets of data also show that the reservoir effect did not change significantly during the overlap period.This study was done in 2000 CE, and thus it did not incorporate the 41 year correction in the oak chronology and it uses the old wiggle matched location for the German pine chronology. The error in the wiggle matching of the pine to the oak chronologies is now reduce, so this total error of +/-30 years overestimates the error at the end of the chronolgy.Note that the data points generally rise from left to right with increasing age due to the decreasing amounts of 14C in the samples as it decays. Thus we still do not need to know the decay rate or whether it is constant or changing, we just observe the values that occur in the samples. All we need are the 14C levels to compare to add to the correlation of 14C levels with calendar age derived from the annual layers of trees and lake varves.This general rising of the data points means that a false correlation of the varves to the tree rings would be quite evident, and the only issue is how accurate and precise is the best fit of the Cariaco varves to the German pine tree rings: and any shift in the tree chronology only moves the Cariaco varves horizontally by a fixed offset. Likewise any error that occurred in placement of the wiggle patterns would be shift of the whole varve pattern by a year or so horizontally. The estimated fixed error of +/-30 years would apply to each point, and this error becomes less relevant the older we get in terms of percentage age error.The chronology was in fact updated in 2004 with improved matches to the dendrochronologies and some revisions and additions to the varve chronology, and the wiggle match was updated as well: Cariaco Basin calibration update: revisions to calendar and 14C chronologies for core⁽³⁾

quote:

---

...Tree-ring chronologies provide high-resolution calibration back to ~12,400 cal BP (Friedrich et al., this issue), but dendrochronologies beyond that age are currently "floating" and not anchored in absolute age (Kromer et al., this issue). For the previous IntCal98 data set (Stuiver et al. 1998), high-resolution calibration data older than tree rings were provided by Cariaco Basin piston core PL07-PC56 (Hughen et al. 1998). Core 56PC was selected for 14C dating from a suite of 4 adjacent piston cores, mostly due to the quality of its high-resolution grayscale record. The core was sampled every 10 cm, yielding approximately 100- to 200-yr resolution. Cariaco piston core PL07-58PC, on the other hand, has a ~25% higher deposition rate than 56PC (Peterson et al. 1990). Core 58PC was sampled every 1.5 cm, providing 14C calibration at 10—15-yr resolution throughout the period of deglaciation, ~10,500 - 14,700 cal BP (Hughen et al. 2000). ... Here, we present the updated anchoring of the floating Cariaco varve chronology to the revised and extended German pine chronology (Friedrich et al., this issue). In addition, we detail the changes made to the calendar age varve chronology between the publication of the 56PC and 58PC 14C calibrations, ...

​

---

This chronology runs from 10,490 BP to 14,673 BP (last data point in data table 1 - see link for table), and is tethered to the German pine chronology (see Message 16, Anchoring The Floating German Pine Chronology) from 10,490 BP to 12,410 BP, or an overlap of 1,920 years with 375 data points listed, 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 is +/-30 years in 14,673years of combined annual records, an error of +/-0.2%.The fact that this chronology matches the combined oak and pine dendrochronology so exactly means that the reservoir effect (see Message 17, Wiggle-matching 14C levels to Anchored Dendrochronologies) stayed very constant during the period of overlap. This, and the fact that all these varves were not disturbed by any major ocean level changes or current patterns or deep water upwelling, means there was no world wide flood in this time.The length of the overlap and number of data points shows a very high degree of consilience that gives us very high confidence in the accuracy and precision of the combined chronology: these two measuring systems are entirely different, unlike previous comparisons between dendrochronologies, and there is no rational reason for such consilience unless they were measuring the same thing: age.Remember: The challenge for old age deniers (especially young earth proponents) is to explain why the same basic results occur from different measurement systems if they are not measuring actual age?This extends our knowledge of the age of the earth based on annual counting mechanisms from 12,410 BP (10,461 BCE) to 14,673 BP or 12,724 BCE, another 2,263 years with high accuracy and precision. The earth is at least 14,740 years old (2017)The minimum age for the earth is now at least 14,740 years old (2017), based on the highly accurate and precise German oak dendrochronology extending back to 12,724 BCE. This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have disturbed the deposition of any of the varve layers, organic or sedimentary -- ie no catastrophic flood occurred in this time that would have buried these ocean varves, or swept them away (depending on which fantasy flood behavior you choose).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), as this chronology extends to 12,724 BCE.This also begins to be a problem for the type of "Gap Creationism" where the earth is old but life is young ... because trees are living things.Enjoy.

---

References

1. Reimer, P. J., Baillie, M.G.L., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J. W., Bertrand, C. J. H., Blackwell, P. G., Buck, C. E., Burr, G. S., Cutler, K. B., Damon, P. E., Edwards, R. L., Fairbanks, R. G., Friedrich, M., Guilderson, T. P., Hogg, A. G., Hughen, K. A., Kromer, B., McCormac, G., Manning, S., Ramsey, C. B., Reimer, R. W., Remmele, S., Southon, J. R., Stuiver, M., IntCal04 Terrestrial Radiocarbon Age Calibration, 0-26 CAL KYR BP, Radiocarbon, Vol 46, Nr 3, 2004, p 1029—1058 https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4167/3592
2. Hughen, K.A., Southon, J.R., Lehman, S.J., Overpeck, J.T.. Synchronous radiocarbon and climate shifts during the last deglaciation, Science vol 290, 2000, p 1951—1954. Just a moment... (abstract) Just a moment... (with sign-in)
3. Hughen, K.A., Southon, J.R., Bertrand, C.J.H., Frantz, B., Zermeo, P., Cariaco Basin calibration update: revisions to calendar and 14C chronologies for core PL07-58PC. Radiocarbon, Vol 46, Nr 3, 2004, p 1161-1187 https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4175/3600

Edited by RAZD, : restructuredEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : piclinkEdited by RAZD, : imgur pics

Lake Suigetsu Varves

The varves in Lake Suigetsu are similar to the ones in Cariaco basin, with alternating layers of diatoms and clay in an annual deposition pattern instead of foraminifera and river sediment. Unlike Cariaco Basin, however, this is a fresh water system and the organic samples for 14C measurements (leaves and twigs) have terrestrial\atmospheric origin and do not require a correction for any marine reservoir effect. This is also a floating chronology that is tethered to the Combined European Oak and German Pine chronology in Message 16, Anchoring The Floating German Pine Chronology by wiggle matching.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 able to tether this chronology to the European oak and German pine chronology using 14C/14C_(1950CE) levels from organic artifacts found with the cores. 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 tethered by matching 14C/14C_(1950CE) levels. BP refers to 'Before Present' which is defined as 1950 CE, which is why the standard amount for the calculation is the 14C_(1950CE) level.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 discernible clay layer. A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14C calibration curve⁽¹⁾

quote:

---

Lake Suigetsu is located near the coast of the Sea of Japan (3535'N, 13553'E). The lake is 10 km around the perimeter and covers 4.3 km2. It is a typical kettle-type lake, nearly flat at the center, Ca. 34 m deep. A 75-m-long continuous core (Lab code = SG) and four short piston cores (Lab codes = 501, -2, -3 and -4) were taken from the center of the lake before 1993 (Kitagawa et al. 1995).

​

The sediments are characterized by dark-colored clay with white layers due to spring season diatom growth. The seasonal changes in the depositions are preserved in the clay as thin, sub-millimeter scale laminations or "varves". Based on observation of varve thickness change, we expect that the annually laminated sediment records the paleoenvironmental changes during the past 100 ka.

​

We have performed AMS 14C measurements on >250 terrestrial macrofossil samples of the annual laminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu. Here, we report varve and 14C chronologies of these sediments. The combined varve and 14C chronologies back to 40,000 BP are used to reconstruct a 14C calibration curve for the total range of the 14C dating method.

​

Based on a more detailed analysis of the varve sediments, the previous chronology obtained mainly from the short piston cores (Kitagawa et al. 1995) is revised for two reasons: 1) a more precise matching of the floating Lake Suigetsu varve chronology to the available dendrochronologies with a high-resolution AMS 14C data set, and 2) an updated varve chronology due to previous miscounting of varve numbers. ... In order to reconstruct a more precise and longer varve chronology for the laminated sediments from Lake Suigetsu, we have reassessed the varve chronology in the whole section during the deglaciation as well as the Glacial up to a depth of 30.45 m.

​

Figure 1 shows the varve and 14C chronologies as a function of depth of the SG core. Until now, the varve numbers have been counted in the 10.42-30.45 m deep section. The Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology consists of 29,100 varves. As shown in Figure 1 the sedimentation or annual varve thickness is relatively uniform (typically 1.2 mm yr-1 during the Holocene and 0.62 mm yr-1 during the Glacial). The age below 30.45 m depth is obtained by assuming a constant sedimentation in the Glacial (0.62 mm yr-1). The 14C ages at 10.42, 30.45 and 35 m depth are ca. 7800, 35,000 and 42,000 BP, respectively.

​

​

In order to reconstruct the calendar time scale, we compared the Lake Suigetsu chronology with calibration curves obtained from the absolute German oak (shifted by 41 yr at 5241 BC to the older direction, Kromer et al. 1996) and the floating German pine (Kromer and Becker 1993) using the least squares minimization. The revised German oak and the floating German pine calibration curves were combined into one calibration curve by moving the age of German pine chronology.

​

Figure 2 shows the best match between the tree-ring and the Lake Suigetsu chronologies, estimated by minimizing the weighted sum of squared differences between the 14C ages of macrofossils and the tree-ring calibration curve. We found the best match when the German pine chronology is shifted by 160 yr with respect to the pine chronology reported by Kromer and Becker (1993). The features in our data overlapping the tree ring calibration agree very well, even for "wiggles" in the 14C calibration curves. Using this match, we defined the absolute time scale for the Lake Suigetsu varves chronology. The 29,100-yr Lake Suigetsu chronology then covers the absolute age range from 8830 to 37,930 cal BP. Our varve chronology also confirms the revised floating German pine chronology, which was recently shifted by 160 yr to the older direction (Bjorck et a1.1996; Kromer et a1.1996).

​

​

The combined 14C and varve chronologies from Lake Suigetsu are used to calibrate the 14C time scale beyond the range of the absolute tree-ring calibration. ...

---

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:

---

The Northern Hemisphere calibration is well defined by tree-ring measurements from 0 to 13,900 cal BP and supplemented by the addition of the Lake Suigetsu macrofossil data, the only other bona fide atmospheric record, from 13,900 cal BP to the end of the range of the dating method. ...

​

... The multiple lake coring also reduces the likelihood of potential problems with slumps or hiatuses, which had additionally limited confidence in the previous chronology (van der Plicht et al. 2004), and the calendar age scale has been made more robust with the integration of both thin-section microscopic and μXRF methods (Marshall et al. 2012; Schlolaut et al. 2012).

---

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.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⁽³⁾

quote:

---

... In 1998, Kitagawa and van der Plicht (1998a,b, 2000) published the first such record, composed of 14C measurements of terrestrial macrofossils extracted from the varved sediment profile of Lake Suigetsu, ... However, problems with the varve-based calendar age scale of their "SG93" sediment core precluded the widespread adoption of this data set for calibration purposes. These problems resulted primarily from gaps between successively drilled sections of the core, but were also due to uncertainties in the varve counting itself (van der Plicht et al. 2004; Staff et al. 2010). Therefore, Lake Suigetsu was re-cored in 2006, with the retrieval of 4 parallel, overlapping sediment cores this time enabling complete recovery of the sedimentary sequence and the subsequent construction of the new "SG06" composite sediment profile (Nakagawa et al. 2012). Over 550 14C determinations have been obtained from terrestrial plant macrofossils picked from SG06, which have been coupled with the core’s improved, independent varve chronology (produced through the integration of 2 complementary counting techniques; Marshall et al. 2012; Schlolaut et al. 2012) to provide what is still the only non-reservoir-corrected 14C calibration data set across the entire 14C dating range (Bronk Ramsey et al. 2012).

​

As with the construction of the composite SG06 sediment profile from the 4 contributing, parallel cores (Nakagawa et al. 2012), archive U-channel sediment from most of the SG93 core sections from which 14C measurements had been previously obtained ("SG93-11" to "SG93-14" and "SG93-20" to "SG93-36") were fitted to the SG06 sediment profile through direct matching of distinct marker horizons (tephras, flood layers, turbidite layers, and other distinct sedimentological structures) between the respective cores. ...

​

Most SG93 core sections could be matched without difficulty to SG06 through purely visual means, despite the fact that the SG93 sediment had oxidized and therefore lost much of its visible lamination. Only a handful of SG93 core sections were more difficult to place. Figure 1 shows 2 examples of this physical matching process ...

​

​

The span of missing sediment between successive SG93 core sections is obtained through subtracting the equivalent SG06 composite core depth of the bottom of a given SG93 core section from that of the top of the underlying section ...

​

The gaps between core sections are all

Table 1 Equivalent SG06 composite depth (August 2009 version; Nakagawa et al. 2012) and varve count and 14C model-derived calendar age scale (given in "SG062012 yr BP"; Bronk Ramsey et al. 2012; Staff et al. 2013) for the 26 SG93 core sections (SG93-11 to SG93-36) from which 14C determinations were obtained by Kitagawa and van der Plicht (1998a,b, 2000).

​

SG93 core section		Original SG93 depth (cm)	Original SG93 vyr BP	SG06 composite depth (cm)	Revised SG062012 yr BP
SG93-32	Top	2770.0	33,470	2930.1	35,504 +/- 81
	Bottom	2862.0	34,946	3015.3	36,964 +/- 87
SG93-33	Top	2862.0	34,946	3027.0	37,150 +/- 86
	Bottom	2953.0	36,402	3123.5	38,441 +/- 89
SG93-34	Top	2953.0	36,402	3134.0	38,586 +/- 90
	Bottom	3045.0	37,930	3203.1	39,523 +/- 98
SG93-35	Top	3045.0	n/a	3217.8	39,744 +/- 99
	Bottom	3136.0	n/a	3297.6	40,840 +/- 79
SG93-36	Top	3136.0	n/a	3302.0	40,901 +/- 78
	Bottom	3227.0	n/a	3385.1	42,098 +/- 84

​

... Therefore, while the SG93 data contribute additional information for pre-Holocene 14C calibration, they were not considered appropriate for the high-precision linkage to the decadally resolved IntCal09 tree-ring data set (i.e. the SG93 data were not used for the Bayesian 14C modeling applied to tie the floating Suigetsu varve chronology to the "absolute" IntCal09 timescale; as described by Staff et al. 2013).

---

A new wiggle-match to the updated oak and pine chronology was made, and the original samples were not used, so this is an independent tethering of the chronology to the dendrochronologies.The original earliest (most ancient) 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 now been extended to 42,098 BP (before 1950). This new study correlates with and confirms that the old study 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 tethering of the varve chronology even 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 (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:

• This chronology is totally independent of the one from the tree-ring data in spite of several thousand years of matching Carbon-14 levels, and the minimum age of the earth is 12,473 years + ? + 35,075 years = at least 47,552 years old (2017), OR
• These chronologies overlap as determined by matching the measured 14C/14C_(1950CE) levels, and the minimum age of the earth is 42,098 years BP - 42,165 years old (2017)

Note that this extends annual chronological dating to the archaeological dates found by 14C dating for the cave paintings at Lasceaux and Chauvet that can now be correlated to the varve ages by matching their actual 14C levels. 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 BCE, (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 now 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).However, this is one single source of information, and the multiple cores increase our confidence that they represent the varve layers in the lake, but there still could be multiple diatom layers and there still could be missing diatom layers, errors that could exist across the whole lake.Thus we can say that the varves are highly precise counting of layers, and that the match between the independent cores indicates good accuracy. This will be discussed in more detail in Message 22, Varve Accuracy and Precision (next). The earth is at least 42,165 years old (2017)The minimum age for the earth is now tentatively at least 42,165 years old (2017), based on the accurate and highly precise Lake Suigetsu varve floating chronology tethered to the European oak and German pine anchored chronology extending back to 40,149 BCE. This also means that there was no major catastrophic event that would have buried these layers -- ie no catastrophic flood occurred in this time.This is ~7 times older than many YEC models (~6,000 years for those using Archbishop Usher's assumption filled calculations of a starting date of 4004 BCE), as this chronology extends to 40,149 BCE.This also begins to be a problem for the type of "Gap Creationism" where the earth is old but life is young ... because leaves and twigs from trees are from things living at that time.Enjoy.

---

References

1. Kitagawa, H., van der Plicht, J., A 40,000-year varve chronology from Lake Suigetsu, Japan: extension of the 14C calibration curve, Radiocarbon vol 40, nr 1 p 505-515, 1998, https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/2037/2040
2. Reimer, P.J., Bard, E., Bayliss, A., Beck, J.W., Blackwell, P.G., Ramsey, C.B., Buck, C.E., Cheng, H., Edwards, R.L., Friedrich, M., Grootes, P.M., Guilderson, T.P., Haflidason,H., Hajdas, I., Hatt, C., Heaton, T.J., Hoffmann, D.L., Hogg, A.G., Hughen, K.A., Kaiser, K.F., Kromer, B., Manning, S.W., Niu,M., Reimer,R.W., Richards, D.A., Scott, E.M., Southon, J.R., Staff, R.A., Christian S M Turney, C.S.M., van der Plicht,J., IntCal13 and Marine13 Radiocarbon Age Calibration Curves 0—50,000 Years cal BP, Radiocarbon, Vol 55, Nr 4, 2013, p 1869—1887, https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/16947/pdf
3. Staff, R.A., Schlolaut, G., Ramsey, C.B., Brock,F., Bryant, C.L., Kitagawa, H., van der Plicht, J., Marshall, M.H., Brauer, A., Lamb, H.F., Payne, R.L., Tarasov,P.E., Haraguchi,T., Gotanda, K., Yonenobu, H., Yokoyama, Y., Nakagawa, T., Suigetsu 2006 Project Members, Integration of Old and New Lake Suigetsu 14C Data Sets, Radiocarbon, Vol 55, Nr 4, 2013, p 2049—2058, https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/16339/pdf

Edited by RAZD, : restructuredEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : correctedEdited by RAZD, : piclinkEdited by RAZD, : imgur pics

Varve Accuracy and Precision

Similar in effect to tree-ring chronologies, errors in the varve chronologies can occur through uncounted thin or missing varves and counting of extra varves that are not annual depositions, each causing minor errors if they are infrequent occurrences. Like tree-ring chronologies there are ways to identify and correct most of these errors. Cross checking with other cores ensures that the count accurately reflects the number of varves, but cannot check for errors across the whole area. For that you need an independent check.Both the Message 20, Cariaco Basin Varves, and the Message 21, Lake Suigetsu Varves, have been updated, adjusted and corrected for such errors, improving the precision and accuracy of these systems. Thus far we have two floating varve systems, and each can be:(A) Compared to Other Varve Systems — Lake SteeleVarves from Steel Lake, in Minnesota cover the last 4,000 years and thus overlap the most recent highly precise and accurate tree ring data, and this can be used to verify the varve counting methodology: Christian Geologists on Noah's Flood: Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology⁽¹⁾

quote:

---

We will employ tree rings and carbon-14, but not in the way readers may be accustomed to seeing. We will not use carbon-14 to determine an age at all. We will simply measure how much carbon-14 is currently found in each tree ring. Carbon-14 decays with time, so if each tree ring represents one year of growth, we should see a steady decline in the carbon-14 content of each successive ring. ...

​

​

Figure 4 shows varve data from Steel Lake and Lake Suigetsu extended to the limit of carbon-14 detection. Serious consideration of this data should be sobering for the committed Young-Earther.

---

Note that this is NOT a 14C age calibration curve, it is a plot of the natural log of actual measured modern day 14C/14C_(1950CE) levels vs annual calendar values from tree rings and lake varves, and this plot does not depend in any way on the half-life of 14C -- it just uses the ln(14C measured) for levels measured today.Note further that there is a discussion of the original Lake Suigetsu varve research at Answers in Genesis: Lake Varves⁽²⁾

quote:

---

One of the products of the continuing cycles of the seasons can be found on the bottoms of some lakes. Each spring, tiny plants bloom in Lake Suigetsu, a small body of water in Japan. When these one-cell algae die, they drift down, shrouding the lake floor with a thin, white layer. The rest of the year, dark clay sediments settle on the bottom. At the bottom of Lake Suigetsu, thin layers of microscopic algae have been piling up for many years. The alternating layers of dark and light count the years like tree rings. ...

​

The results from just one source could possibly be readily contested, but in this case the scientists have correlated the results from multiple sources including that of Lake Gosciaz (Poland), German oak and pine tree ring chronologies and also calibrations from coral data. Many in the scientific community are proposing the result of the above study as a "calibration" to radiometric C14 data, see Appendix A. Also the data seems to indicate no more that a 16.7 percent error due to deviation of C14 in the atmosphere for the past 40,000 years.

​

Conclusion: The apparent close correlation of the dating results from multiple sources appears to be strong evidence for an earth much older than 10,000 years!

​

Also C14 dating affirms Scripture/Scripture affirms C14 dating!

---

This recognizes that the consilience in the data from different sources gives high confidence in the results. As seen in Message 21, Lake Suigetsu Varves also matched the tree ring chronology with high precision and accuracy. This shows that 14C measurement levels from lakes correlate with tree rings with no apparent effect of time, depth and water saturation on the 14C measurements (as one should expect if they both measure actual age and actual 14C content). Unfortunately it only extends ~4,000 years from the present, and thus does not add to our knowledge for the minimal age of the earth.(B) To a Second Independent Core Set of the Varves Taken from a Different LocationJust as two independent dendrochronologies of the same species were compared to cross-check the dendrochronological data, two independent sets of varve cores from the same source can be compared to cross-check the varve data.As noted in Message 20, Cariaco Basin Varves, this was done in 2004, at higher resolution of the layers, and the result was a shifting of the more ancient layers to older ages. The Blling period grew by 25%, from 634 to 790 years long, and the transition to the Younger Dryas lengthened by 33%, from 150 to 200 years. The German pine chronology update resulted in shifting the whole chronology to ~85 years younger.And as noted in Message 21, Lake Suigetsu Varves, this was done in 2006, at higher resolution of the layers, and the result was an extension with some later varves being counted (to 7,023 BP or 5073 BCE) and some shifting to older ages (1,593 layers in all were added), as very thin varves were counted that had been missed (or ignored previously), and some alignment errors were corrected, and the chronology was exteded to 42,098 BP (40,148 BCE).Note that 1,593 years in the 37,930 years of the original chronology is still an error of only 4.2%, so the original chronology still had fairly good accuracy and precision. The new Suigetsu varve chronology was independently wiggle-matched to the updated oak and pine dendrochronology using only 14C level measurements from the new cores. This was discussed in: The multiple chronological techniques applied to the Lake Suigetsu (SG06) sediment core (PDF)⁽³⁾

quote:

---

The multiple, independent geochronological methods applied to the SG06 sediment core can be integrated to provide more robust chronological control for the palaeoenvironmental data obtained from the Lake Suigetsu sediments. ... ... To do this, the 14C data from SG06 were modelled against the IntCal09 calibration curve using Bayesian wiggle-matching techniques (Bronk Ramsey 2008, 2009). The data for this modelling process lie comfortably within the tree-ring portion of IntCal09 (i.e. younger than 12 550 cal. a BP), and thus only the ‘wholly reliable’ (tree-ring-derived) portion of IntCal09 is used for this wiggle-match. This produces an SG06 varve year chronology (as tied to IntCal) that remains ‘wholly terrestrial’ — free from any marine reservoir assumptions that would be incorporated if the earlier portion of IntCal were included in the modelling process. Although the entire SG06 14C data set across this ~12 000-year period (comprising 182 14C determinations from 15 m of SG06 core) is utilized for this wiggle-match, the precise point at which the SG06 varve chronology is connected to the IntCal09 tree-ring chronology is defined by one of the many distinct marker horizons in SG06 (i.e. characteristic layers used for correlating overlapping core sections, such as tephras, flood layers and turbidites; Nakagawa et al. 2012) — event layer B-07—08 at 1397.4 cm composite depth (Fig. 3A). The choice of B-07—08 as the tie-point to the IntCal time scale was made on the grounds that: (i) an obvious stratigraphic (marker) horizon was needed; (ii) the tie-point needed to be sufficiently far from the ends of the modelled time interval to reduce uncertainty in the wiggle-match modelling; and (iii) B-07—08 coincides with a portion of the 14C calibration curve with a steep gradient (Fig. 3B), resulting in more tightly constrained calibrated (unmodelled) 14C data of measurements adjacent to the event that, in turn, produce more tightly constrained modelled ages from this section of the core. Accordingly, the modelled age of B-07—08 in SG06 is between 11 255 and 11 222 cal. a BP at the 68.2% probability range (between 11 275 and 11 209 cal. a BP at the 95.4% probability range), which can be approximated to a normal distribution with m=11 241 cal. a BP and σ=17 ...

---

Thus the accuracy and precision of this wiggle-match tethering point is (A) 11,242 BP +/- 33 years in the center 95.4% (+/-2σ) of the probability distribution (between 11 275 and 11 209 BP) and (B) 11,238.5 BP +/- 16.5 years in the center 68.2% (+/-1σ) of the probability distribution (between 11,255 and 11,222 BP) ... or ~11,240 BP +/-17 years.Also note that they were able to align the original core sections with the new ones to correct their placement. This is similar to the adding of zero width tree-rings in the second Bristlecone pine chronology, (see Message 8, Bristlecone Pines Chronologies), and that when these adjustments were made then they both agreed for the sections between the corrections, such as volcanic ash and pollen depositions. This demonstrates the active updating of scientific information as new information becomes available. Scientists are able to find errors or missed varves when they look at the original information in finer detail and readily adjust the results to account for new information and data. This feed-back process improves the precision and accuracy in the most current results.(C) Compared to Each Other by 14C AmountsAs we saw in Message 15, Comparing European Oak and Bristlecone Pine Chronologies by 14C Levels, the levels of 14C in samples declines over time due to radioactive decay, but to match one chronology to another doesn't rely on the rate of decay -- it doesn't matter what the decay rate of 14C is, or whether the rate varies or even if the ratio in the atmosphere varied over time -- samples from the same age start with the same level of 14C/14C_(1950CE), and the 14C in each will decay by the same amount year by year, and they will end up with the same level today. Thus comparing the actual measured levels is a legitimate comparison, and any consilience in the data increases our overall confidence that these correlations are accurate and precise. We can compare two 14C tethered varve chronologies to see if they reflect similar values beyond the tethering period or whether they diverge.This is similar to the way dendrochronologies are built from different tree samples (using ring widths, as was used to tether the German pine chronology to the German oak chronology before it was anchored dendrochronologically), but there is less likelihood to place the sample in the wrong location due to the declining 14C as it decays over time.Both the Message 20, Cariaco Basin Varves, and the Message 21, Lake Suigetsu Varves were wiggle-matched to the same Combined Oak and Pine chronology (see Message 16, Anchoring The Floating German Pine Chronology), and that means we can compare them beyond the tethering overlap to see whether they diverge, or match, over their length of overlap.The matches are not always identical from one to the other, due in part to small natural variation and in part to (small) measurement errors, but they should be relatively close, and with a long enough overlap we can make a best fit compare results with a high degree of confidence.Unless there is a significant difference, any match-up error from wiggle-matching their starting points would result in a possible shift of a few years older or younger for the absolute counting rather than a whole-sale change. This error would be the same Δ for any date on the tethered chronology, and become less critical with age (the % error declines as age increases).We also saw in Message 20, Cariaco Basin Varves, and in Message 21, Lake Suigetsu Varves, that these matches were pretty strong:

quote:

---

---

The one for Cariaco Basin on the left shows very fine detail of the match-up, a level of detail that would be astounding if it were due to random variation in either chronology's correlation to 14C levels. The one for Lake Suigetsu on the right is at a larger scale and has fewer data points for the overlap, so it is not as strong a correlation as the Cariaco Basin varves. Unfortunately it is from the 1998 data and not the updated, corrected and extended 2006 data.There does not seem to be a good one-on-one comparison graph of the updated Cariaco Basin varves to the updated Lake Suigetsu varves. This one also uses the original Lake Suigetsu data: Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals,PDF⁽⁴⁾

quote:

---

---

It is a little difficult to pick out the Lake Suigestsu varves ( Δ ) and the Cariaco varves ( • ) in this graph, especially when they combine Cariaco non-varve dates with the varve dates (the other data is from other non-annual counting systems, so we can't include them here other than to show that these other systems do derive similar data to the annual varves, a consilience that should only occur if true age is being measured by all these different systems).The Cariaco Basin varves only extend to 14,673 BP or 12,724 BCE (Message 20, Cariaco Basin Varves), so we can only compare them that far for out annual counting systems. There appears to be about 400 to 500 years difference between these data sets (with the uncorrected data for Suigetsu varves) an error of 3% in the last 14,740 years (2017).This shows good accuracy and precision for the updated Cariaco Basin varves and the updated Lake Suigetsu varves, but it doesn't get us to the earliest Lake Suigetsu varves.(D) To Volcanic EruptionsSimilar to the way tree-ring chronologies could be linked to historical events through frost-rings caused by known volcanic eruptions (Message 14, Accuracy and Precision in Dendrochronologies Compared to Historical Events), varves can be linked to volcanic eruptions through the deposition of ash layers in the varves. Unfortunately, history does not record events this far back in time, and so these ash layers will have to be dated by other means. This introduces a measure of error in these cross-checks. in Message 21, Lake Suigetsu Varves, it was noted that the ages determined for some of the ash layers were concordant with the ages from testing at another site. While not a precise check this certainly shows that they are in the right ball-park. Another volcano tephra layer in Lake Suigetsu has now been linked to a Korean volcano: The multiple chronological techniques applied to the Lake Suigetsu (SG06) sediment core (PDF)^(3)
(again)

quote:

---

There are 30 distinct visible tephra layers present within the SG06 sediment core. ... In addition to the relative chronological information provided by tephrostratigraphy, certain tephras (those that are alkali-rich) can be radiometrically dated via the argon—argon (40Ar/39Ar) technique. ... occasional tephras from Korean source volcanoes found within SG06 do contain sanidine to 40Ar/39Ar dating, and one such eruption, the ‘SG06-1288 tephra’ (at 1286.1 to 1288.0 cm composite depth; Nakagawa et al. 2012), has already been successfully 40Ar/39Ar-dated (Smith et al. 2011). ... In this way, the SG06-1288 tephra (equivalent to the regionally widespread ‘U-Oki’ tephra) has been ascribed to the ‘U4’ unit of Ulleungdo stratovolcano, South Korea (~500 km WNW of Lake Suigetsu) and 40Ar/39Ar-dated to 10 000+/-300 a BP. ... As described above, the SG06-1288 tephra has been 40Ar/39Ar-dated by Smith et al. (2011) to 10 000+/-300 a BP. This age is statistically indistinguishable at 1σ uncertainty from the 14C-derived modelled age of this event in SG06 of between 10 231 and 10 202 cal. a BP at the 68.2% probability range (between 10 255 and 10 177 cal. a BP at the 95.4% probability range; Staff et al. 2011). Thus, an independent verification is provided for the accuracy of the 14C chronology obtained for the uppermost SG06 sediment sections, ...

---

Thus this tephra is dated to 10,000 BP +/-300 years by 40Ar/39Ar and to 10,216 BP +/-17 years (between 10 231 and 10 202 BP at the center +/-1σ of the probability distribution). Again, in the right ball-park and confirming the accuracy and precision of not only the Lake Suigetsu varve tethering, but also the dendrochronology it is tethered to. ConclusionVarve counting is well developed as a discipline that has developed the methodology necessary to match different varves in the same and different locations with a high accuracy and precision for a continuous chronology. Two such chronologies agree with over 97% accuracy back to 14,673 BP or 12,723 BCE. The longest chronology extends back to 42,098 years BP - before 1950 - or 40,148 BCE.Remember: The challenge for old age deniers (especially young earth proponents) is to explain the consilience in all this data: why the same basic results occur from different measurement systems if they are not measuring actual age?Enjoy.References

1. Davidson,G., and Wolgemuth,K. (website), Biblical and Scientific Shortcomings of Flood Geology, Part 4, the BioLogos Foundation, September 17, 2012[2015, March 01] BioLogos - Not Found (404) - BioLogos
2. Anonymous "Lake Varves" Genesis Research. updated 28 Oct 1998. accessed 10 Jan 2007 from Lake Varves
3. Staff, R.A., Nakagawa, T., Schlolaut, G., Marshall, M.H., Brauer, A., Lamb, H.F., Bronk, Ramsey, C., Bryant, C.L., Brock, F., Kitagawa, H., van der Plicht, J., Payne, R.L., Smith, V.C., Mark, D.F., MacLeod, A., Blockley, S.P.E., Schwenninger, J-L., Tarasov. P.E., Haraguchi, T., Gotanda, K., Yonenobu, H., Yokoyama, Y., Suigetsu 2006 Project Members, The multiple chronological techniques applied to the Lake Suigetsu (SG06) sediment core, Boreas, vol 42 nr 2, 2013, p 259—266. http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/...oreasStaff/2013BoreasStaff.pdf
4. Fairbanks, R.G., Mortlocka, R.A., Chiua, T-C., Caoa, L., Kaplana, A., Guildersonc, T.P., Fairbankse, T.W., Bloom, A.L., Grootesg, P.M. Nadeaug, M-J., Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals, Quaternary Science Reviews vol 24 (2005) p 1781—1796 http://radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/...5Fairbanks+table.pdf

Edited by RAZD, : reorganizedEdited by RAZD, : linkEdited by RAZD, : restructuredEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : correctedEdited by RAZD, : piclinkEdited by RAZD, : imgur pics

Radiocarbon Dating and Corrections

Radiocarbon dating (14C dating) uses the decay of the radioactive isotope 14C: Carbon-14⁽¹⁾

quote:

---

Carbon-14, 14C, or radiocarbon, is a radioactive isotope of carbon with an atomic nucleus containing 6 protons and 8 neutrons. Its presence in organic materials is the basis of the radiocarbon dating method pioneered by Willard Libby and colleagues (1949) to date archaeological, geological and hydrogeological samples. Carbon-14 was discovered on February 27, 1940, by Martin Kamen and Sam Ruben at the University of California Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California. Its existence had been suggested by Franz Kurie in 1934.[2]

​

... The primary natural source of carbon-14 on Earth is cosmic ray action on nitrogen in the atmosphere, and it is therefore a cosmogenic nuclide. However, open-air nuclear testing between 1955—1980 contributed to this pool.

​

The different isotopes of carbon do not differ appreciably in their chemical properties. This resemblance is used in chemical and biological research, in a technique called carbon labeling: carbon-14 atoms can be used to replace nonradioactive carbon, in order to trace chemical and biochemical reactions involving carbon atoms from any given organic compound.

---

Note that water is not affected by 14C in any way different from 12C and 13C, nor does the environment affect them in any way other than normal chemical reactions involving carbon. There is no physical system to "sort" 14C that is any different than other carbon atoms. The 14C Method⁽²⁾

quote:

---

There are three principal isotopes of carbon which occur naturally - C12, C13 (both stable) and C14 (unstable or radioactive). These isotopes are present in the following amounts C12 - 98.89%, C13 - 1.11% and C14 - 0.00000000010%. Thus, one carbon 14 atom exists in nature for every 1,000,000,000,000 C12 atoms in living material. The radiocarbon method is based on the rate of decay of the radioactive or unstable carbon isotope 14 (14C), which is formed in the upper atmosphere through the effect of cosmic ray neutrons upon nitrogen 14. The reaction is:

​

14N + n => 14C + p
(Where n is a neutron and p is a proton).

​

The 14C formed is rapidly oxidised to 14CO2 and enters the earth's plant and animal lifeways through photosynthesis and the food chain. The rapidity of the dispersal of C14 into the atmosphere has been demonstrated by measurements of radioactive carbon produced from thermonuclear bomb testing. 14C also enters the Earth's oceans in an atmospheric exchange and as dissolved carbonate (the entire 14C inventory is termed the carbon exchange reservoir (Aitken, 1990)). Plants and animals which utilise carbon in biological foodchains take up 14C during their lifetimes. They exist in equilibrium with the C14 concentration of the atmosphere, that is, the numbers of C14 atoms and non-radioactive carbon atoms stays approximately the same over time. As soon as a plant or animal dies, they cease the metabolic function of carbon uptake; there is no replenishment of radioactive carbon, only decay. There is a useful diagrammatic representation of this process given here ...

---

There is a lightly fluctuating equilibrium of 14C concentrations in the atmosphere around a long term average. How Carbon-14 is Made⁽³⁾

quote:

---

Cosmic rays enter the earth's atmosphere in large numbers every day. For example, every person is hit by about half a million cosmic rays every hour. It is not uncommon for a cosmic ray to collide with an atom in the atmosphere, creating a secondary cosmic ray in the form of an energetic neutron, and for these energetic neutrons to collide with nitrogen atoms. When the neutron collides, a nitrogen-14 (seven protons, seven neutrons) atom turns into a carbon-14 atom (six protons, eight neutrons) and a hydrogen atom (one proton, zero neutrons). Carbon-14 is radioactive, with a half-life of about 5,700 years.

---

This takes energy to accomplish, and the decay releases this energy: Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 by beta^- decay: Beta Decay⁽⁴⁾

quote:

---

​

During beta-minus decay, a neutron in an atom's nucleus turns into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino. The electron and antineutrino fly away from the nucleus, which now has one more proton than it started with. Since an atom gains a proton during beta-minus decay, it changes from one element to another. For example, after undergoing beta-minus decay, an atom of carbon (with 6 protons) becomes an atom of nitrogen (with 7 protons).

---

Thus cosmic ray activity produces a "Carbon-14 environment" in the atmosphere, where Carbon-14 is being constantly produced or replenished by cosmic rays, while also being removed by radioactive decay due to a short half-life. This results is a variable but fairly stable proportion of atmospheric Carbon-14 for absorption from the atmosphere by plants during photosynthesis in the proportions of C-12 and C-14 existing in the atmosphere at the time, and then by herbivores and then carnivores and then biological decay bacteria, etc.The level of Carbon-14 has not been constant in the past, as it is known to vary with the amount of cosmic ray bombardment and climate changes. Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and this can be used to calculate an apparent "C-14 age" from the proportion of C-14 to C-14_(1950CE) in an organic sample (that derives its carbon from the atmosphere) and this "date" can be checked against samples of known dates to determine the amount of C-14 that was in the atmosphere. This has been done for all the annual counting methods covered so far, and this has resulted in a calibration curve: Radiocarbon Dating⁽⁵⁾

quote:

---

---

Note that the "C-14 age" is really a measurement of the actual ratio of C-14 to the 1950 reference amount in the sample using the "Libby half-life" of 5568 years (rather than the actual half-life of 5730 years), and a comparison of that to modern day proportions. Dating a Fossil⁽⁶⁾

quote:

---

A formula to calculate how old a sample is by carbon-14 dating is:

​

t = {ln (Nf/No)/-0.693} x t_1/2

​

where t is the "C-14 age", ln is the natural logarithm, Nf/No is the percent of carbon-14 in the sample compared to the amount in living tissue, and t_1/2 is the half-life of carbon-14.

---

and where (-0.693) = ln (1/2).This means we can look at the "C-14 age" as a measurement of the Carbon-14 actually remaining in the samples from what was absorbed from the atmosphere at the time that the tree-rings, varve biological samples, etc were formed and note the following:

• If there were numerous errors in the tree-ring or varve data caused by false rings or layers (as suggested by numerous Creationists), then this would show up as a steep rising "C-14 age" that would be much younger than the recorded tree-ring or varve age. This is not the case.
• The false rings or varves would also have to be perfectly matched for each of the species or cores used for the overall chronology ages or the "C-14 age" for each one would be different and the line of calibration would be extremely blurred. This is not the case.
• The age derived from Carbon-14 analysis is consistently younger than the actual age measured by the numerous tree-ring and varve chronologies in pre-historical times, meaning that C-14 dating underestimates the ages of objects. This is due to atmospheric variations and the use of the Libby 5568 year half-life instead of the currently accepted half-life of 5730 years.
• Using the currently accepted half-life of 5730 years would make the calculated ages (5730/5568) = 1.03, or 3% older.

Using the calibration curve to correct the calculated age takes care of both the atmospheric variations and the difference caused by using the "Libby half-life" as this represents a physical proportion of 14C/14C_(1950CE) existing in the samples at the time of testing them. This calibration makes the resulting ages as accurate and precise as the annual age counts and the accuracy and precision of the 14C measurements. Age Calculation⁽⁷⁾

quote:

---

The Conventional Radiocarbon Age BP is calculated using the radiocarbon decay equation:

​

t=-8033 ln(Asn/Aon)

​

Where -8033 represents the mean lifetime of 14C (Stuiver and Polach, 1977). Aon is the activity in counts per minute of the modern standard, Asn is the equivalent cpm for the sample. 'ln' represents the natural logarithm. A CRA embraces the following recommended conventions:

​

• a half-life of 5568 years;
• the use of Oxalic acid I or II, or appropriate secondary radiocarbon standards (e.g. ANU sucrose) as the modern radiocarbon standard;
• correction for sample isotopic fractionation (deltaC13) to a normalized or base value of -25.0 per mille relative to the ratio of C12/C13 in the carbonate standard VPDB (more on fractionation and deltaC13);
• the use of 1950 AD as 0 BP, ie all C14 ages head back in time from 1950;
• the assumption that all C14 reservoirs have remained constant through time.

---

Note that 5568 is the "Libby half-life" for 14C that was used in the first calculations of "14C-age," and this has been adopted as the standard to avoid correcting this twice when making calibrations and obtaining calibrated dates. The value of Aon is constant, established so that the measured 14C calculation will start at 1950: Aon = Asn(1950 14C). Thus the above formula could be reduced to 14C'age' = Kln(14C level measured) by combining all the constant values into K, or we can simply calculate Asn as a percentage of Aon: where -8033 = 5568/ln(1/2) to convert to natural logs.This is the mathematical basis for radiocarbon dating calculations. It is a purely mathematical conversion of the measured 14C/14C_(1950CE) levels to the theoretical age based on the decay half-life of 5568 years. Marine varves and the reservoir effectOne known source of error for marine varves is the marine reservoir effect. Up until now we have dealt with terrestrial organic samples for 14C/14C< levels obtaining carbon from the atmosphere reservoir, where 14C is created from 14N by cosmic rays (inflow) and is removed by decay, by consumption into organic life and by absorption into the oceans (outflow). Similarly the marine reservoir has inflow from the atmosphere, and outflow via decay, consumption and deposition (sediments). Corrections to radiocarbon dates⁽⁸⁾

quote:

---

A Conventional Radiocarbon Age or CRA, does not take into account specific differences between the activity of different carbon reservoirs. A CRA is derived using an age calculation based upon the decay corrected activity of the absolute radiocarbon standard ... Oxalic Acid standards I and II were correlated with the activity of the original standard). In order to ascertain the ages of samples which were formed in equilibrium with different reservoirs to these materials, it is necessary to provide an age correction. Implicit in the Conventional Radiocarbon Age BP is the fact that it is not adjusted for this correction. Natural Corrections Reservoir effects Radiocarbon samples which obtain their carbon from a different source (or reservoir) than atmospheric carbon may yield what is termed apparent ages. A shellfish alive today in a lake within a limestone catchment, for instance, will yield a radiocarbon date which is excessively old. The reason for this anomaly is that the limestone, which is weathered and dissolved into bicarbonate, has no radioactive carbon. Thus, it dilutes the activity of the lake meaning that the radioactivity is depleted in comparison to 14C activity elsewhere. The lake, in this case, has a different radiocarbon reservoir than that of the majority of the radiocarbon in the biosphere and therefore an accurate radiocarbon age requires that a correction be made to account for it. One of the most commonly referenced reservoir effects concerns the ocean. The average difference between a radiocarbon date of a terrestrial sample such as a tree, and a shell from the marine environment is about 400 radiocarbon years (see Stuiver and Braziunas, 1993). This apparent age of oceanic water is caused both by the delay in exchange rates between atmospheric CO2 and ocean bicarbonate, and the dilution effect caused by the mixing of surface waters with upwelled deep waters which are very old (Mangerud 1972). A reservoir correction must therefore be made to any conventional shell dates to account for this difference. Reservoir corrections for the world oceans can be found at the Marine Reservoir Correction Database, a searchable database online at Queen's University, Belfast and the University of Washington.

---

The database is fun to play around with, looking at the variation around the globe. It is also pertinent to note that Creationists have tried to use the (and other known) reservoir effects to discredit 14C dating by intentionally not correcting samples they have had tested that are subject to this effect: A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old⁽⁹⁾:

quote:

---

Claim CD011.4: A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old.
Source: Hovind, Kent, n.d. Doesn't carbon dating or potassium argon dating prove the Earth is millions of years old? http://www.drdino.com/QandA/index.jsp?varFolder=CreationE...

​

... A seal freshly killed at McMurdo had an apparent age of 1,300 years.

​

This is the well-known reservoir effect that occurs also with mollusks and other animals that live in the water. It happens when "old" carbon is introduced into the water. In the above case of the seal, old carbon dioxide is present within deep ocean bottom water that has been circulating through the ocean for thousands of years before upwelling along the Antarctic coast.

---

You can check the reservoir effect for McMurdo Sound with the on-line database.The Lake Suigetsu organic samples, leaves, twigs, etc., have atmospheric carbon origin and thus are not affected by the reservoir effect.The amount of variation in this correction makes it important to have reservoir correction data for the area being studied, and to have an idea of how those reservoir effects have changed over time. This was discussed in relation to the Cariaco Basin varves: Cariaco Basin calibration update: revisions to calendar and 14C chronologies for core PL07-58PC⁽¹⁰⁾

quote:

---

Marine Reservoir Effect The local Cariaco marine 14C reservoir age was determined by dating 2 samples of pre-bomb forams of known calendar age from box core PL07-BC81 (Hughen et al. 1996). The calendar ages for the samples are 15 and 40 BP, constrained by varve counts, 210Pb ages, and historical dates for 2 large earthquakes in the region that resulted in distinct turbidites in the upper 25 cm (Hughen et al. 1996). The 14C ages measured for the samples are 490 +/- 60 and 460 +/- 50 BP, whereas the marine model from IntCal98 (Stuiver et al. 1998) yields marine ages of 462 and 450 BP, respectively. This results in ∆R values of +28 and +10, for an average of about +20 yr. On this basis, we assigned a Cariaco reservoir age of 420 yr. An alternate reservoir age determination uses the weighted mean difference of Cariaco and tree-ring 14C ages between 10.5 and 12.5 cal kyr BP (Hughen et al., this issue). The mean of the differences, weighted by error, gives the average reservoir age, and the square root of the variance gives the uncertainty. This resulted in a reservoir age of 430 +/- 30 yr, close to the original value as expected, since the Cariaco calendar age was determined by wiggle-matching the reservoir-corrected data to IntCal04 tree rings. However, the reservoir uncertainty of +/-30 yr is robust and is adopted in Table 1. The reservoir age is assumed to have remained constant through the last deglaciation, and has been used to convert Cariaco marine 14C ages to atmospheric values. The best evidence for a constant local Cariaco reservoir age is seen in the close agreement between Cariaco and tree-ring 14C ages across the abrupt Younger Dryas termination (Figure 5). There is no discernible offset between terrestrial and marine 14C despite strongly increased Cariaco upwelling during the Younger Dryas period. This agrees with evidence for a short residence time of carbon in the deep basin, ~100 yr (Holman and Rooth 1990), suggesting that increased upwelling does not result in significantly "older" water reaching the surface. (see Fig 5 already shown above) There is preliminary evidence from floating tree-ring sequences matched to the Cariaco record suggesting a possible increased marine reservoir age during the Allerod period (Kromer et al., this issue). These data suggest that the reservoir age from 14,000 to 13,000 BP may have been as high as ~650 yr, decreasing to ~420 yr during the transition into the Younger Dryas. Given the evidence above for a short Cariaco residence time, this may indicate a change in the tropical Atlantic reservoir age in general rather than the Cariaco Basin in particular. If these preliminary results remain robust as the floating dendrochronology is strengthened and eventually linked to the anchored chronology <12,500 cal BP, they will provide a valuable record of changes in Atlantic reservoir age relative to abrupt climate shifts during deglaciation. The reservoir age uncertainties calculated for this data set (Table 1) reflect the variability in reservoir age measurements themselves, and do not take into account potential changes in reservoir age through time, which may be much larger.

---

So two things to note here: (1) there is a floating dendrochronology that could become tethered to the German pine chronology and extend the dendrochronologies age measurements further into the past, and (2) that the older Cariaco varve 14C/14C_(1950CE) correlations need to be corrected by a larger marine reservoir. This uncertainty in the marine reservoir effect means that differences between the Lake Suigetsu varves and the Cariaco Basin varves are partly due to adjustments in the reservoir effect. Note, however, that the effect of a 200 year shift in the 14C 'age' at 14,000 BP is an error of 1.4%, so the consilience between the two varve systems is still robust even without additional corrections. One needs to explain the precise and accurate correlations of these data sets from several independent sources of data (German pine, two sets of Lake Suigetsu varves, two sets of Cariaco varves and 14C levels) with an actual mechanism that would cause these precise and accurate matches if one continues to contend that they are not due to measuring the actual age of the samples.Enjoy.

---

References

1. Anon, Wikipedia.com (website), Carbon 14,[2017, June 25]: Carbon-14 - Wikipedia
2. Higham, T., Radiocarbon Web-Info (website), The 14C Method,[2017, June 25]: The method
3. Brain, M., Science.howstuffworks.com (website), How Carbon-14 is Made,[2017, June 25]:
   How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
4. Anon, Jefferson Lab (website), Beta Decay,[2017, June 25]: Glossary Term - Beta Decay
5. Christie, M., Wikipedia.com (website), Radiocarbon Dating,[2017, June 25]: Radiocarbon dating - Wikipedia
6. Brain, M., Science.howstuffworks.com (website), Dating a Fossil,[2017, June 25]: How Carbon-14 Dating Works | HowStuffWorks
7. Higham, T., Radiocarbon Web-Info (website), Age Calculation,[2017, June 25]: Radiocarbon Date calculation
8. Higham, T., Radiocarbon Web-Info (website), Corrections to radiocarbon dates,[2017, June 25]: Corrections to radiocarbon dates.
9. Isaak, M., editor, Talk Origins Archive, Index to Creationist Claims, Claim CD011.4: A freshly killed seal was carbon-14 dated at 1300 years old. CD011.4: C-14 age of a seal
10. Hughen, K.A., Southon, J.R., Bertrand, C.J.H., Frantz, B., Zermeo, P., Cariaco Basin calibration update: revisions to calendar and 14C chronologies for core PL07-58PC. Radiocarbon, Vol 46, Nr 3, 2004, p 1161-1187 https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/...icle/download/4175/3600

Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..Edited by RAZD, : correctionEdited by RAZD, : piclinkEdited by RAZD, : imgur pics

Summary of Part 1 - Biological Counting Systems

In this first part we saw how dendrochronologies were assembled (Message 7), compared (Message 13 and Message 15), and then integrated into a single Combined Dendrochronology, using Bristlecone Pines (Message 8), Irish Oaks (Message 10), German Oaks (Message 11), and German Pines (Message 16), that extended back to 10,461 BCE, showing that the earth is at least 12,477 years old (in 2017), based on the highly precise and accurate data (error < 1%).Then we saw how the naturally occurring wiggle pattern of atmposheric 14C levels in organic samples (tree rings and organic debris embedded in annual varves) was used to tether and connect floating chronologies to the anchored Combined Dendrochronology, how possible errors in this tethering only shift the data horizontally so the accumulated error by the end of the tether chronologies is again in the 1% range.Not only did this tethering of the Cariaco Basin Varves (Message 20) and the Lake Suigetsu Varves (Message 21) extend the overall chronology back to 40,149 BCE, showing that the earth is at least 42,021 years old (in 2017) based on accurate and precise data (±3% possible error), but it also showed there was no world wide flood during this time, as these counting systems would have been disrupted by it -- wood would have floated off and varves would have shown an entirely different pattern.The data also shows changes in climate patterns (tree ring and varve thicknesses etc), and this will be discussed more in Part 2.In addition, this data validates that 14C was indeed decaying exponentially during this time, that the difference between measured age 14C and 14C calculated age was explained by the wiggle pattern observed in 14C production by cosmic rays that we see today. Thus there was no massive alteration in physics that would have caused any significant change to radioactive decay rates. This too will be discussed more in Part 2.This ends Part 1 -- the biological counting systems, using annual tree rings, and foraminifera layers and diatom layers in annual varves.Part 2 will involve physical\chemical counting systems, where the layers are identified by physical\chemical changes from summer to winter.EnjoyNote that I have restructured the whole thread to ensure links are correct and to break some posts into two posts for clarity and focus.Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ..

You will note a long list of edits on these posts, most of it is due to correcting misformating and to restructuring the thread, but the significant one is due to moving the site of pictures to a dedicated folder.IF you see this Tell me the message (mid number).The age measurement pictures can be fixed by changing
http://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/RAZD/AM...
to
http://i862.photobucket.com/...RAZD/Age_of_the_Earth/V3-1/AM...This is across the board for a lot of my thread picture sources, so if you find a broken link let me know and I will see about fixing it (unless in a closed thread).Such as skeleton and skull pictures in The story of Bones and Dogs and Humans, changing
http://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/RAZD/...
to
http://i862.photobucket.com/...184/RAZD/Skeletons_and_Skulls...and Evolution pictures and diagrams in Introduction to Evolution, changing
http://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/RAZD/...
to
http://i862.photobucket.com/albums/ab184/RAZD/Evolution/...I have fixed the thread, but many of those pictures have been used in other posts on other threads, so they will crop up.Update: I have now put the pictures on Imgur instead of Photobucket.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : ...Edited by RAZD, : No reason given.

Age of the Earth
Part 2 - Physical/Chemical Counting Systems

I have decided to break this issue into different threads so each could be discussed freelyThe second part is The Age of the Earth (version 3 no 1 part 2)EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : .Edited by RAZD, : updated link

pictures have been updated from Photobucket to FotoTime
and now from FotoTime to Imgur ...Let me know if you have any problems seeing the pictures.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : again

From Assumptions involved in scientific dating, Message 148: So here's an opportunity to tell your objective truths AND provide data without the bias shrouding it.Balls in your court.Enjoy