Statistical analysis of tree rings

From the file you can't tell. I found it from Biblical Chronology and the 8,000-Year-Long Bristlecone Pine Tree-Ring Chronology, the first reference at the end. If you can't trust Woodmorappe who can you trust?Don't answer that.The data is briefly described at Graybill - Methuselah Walk - PILO - ITRDB CA535. The file format is also briefly described at Description of Tree Ring Data Files and Procedures: Format for Tree-Ring Data Files.

Then stop posting your amateurish and unfounded "analyses". You're confused on on the burden of proof. If you think "rings were subjectively added by researchers", it's up to you to present evidence for your claim. "0" might well mean "present but less than the increment of measurement". You got original data. You want something better, put up some money, get a permit, and go core a tree. Gee, wonder why Wody didn't do that? Since you are "analysing" by your own undocumented and unverified methods, this claim is meaningless noise. Specify your methodology and your mathematiocal justification for it. Hypothesize whatever you wish. When you have evidence that supports your hypothesis, present it. Unspecified and (almost certainly) invalid "analyses" aren't evidence.

Check out Message 14. It's a reply to me, but I think it was intended for you.Why does he think a moving average is helpful? It seems like that would remove the detail necessary for finding correlations.--Percy

I think his posts aren't intended for anyone but himself. He's trying to convince himself. He's obviously not putting any effort into convincing anyone else.ETA: I have no idea why he does any of the calculations he's done.Edited by JonF, : No reason given.

Sort of answering your own question, aren't ya'?

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou shinniest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Check out the IntCal98 information - they used a moving average (p 3/1043)

quote:

---

Part of single-year Δ¹⁴C (expressed as the per mil (&permil) deviation of tree-ring 34C activity from NBS oxalic acid activity, corrected for isotope fractionation, Stuiver and Polach 1977) is tied to 11-yr-cycle solar modulation of atmospheric ¹⁴C production. Pacific Northwest single-year data (when averaged with those of a Kodiak Island tree) yield a three-year moving average for the AD 1897- 1945 interval with 11-yr-cycle Δ¹⁴C modulation averaging 2.5‰ (peak to peak) over four cycles (Stuiver and Braziunas 1998). Twenty ¹⁴C years appears to be an upper limit for single-yr ¹⁴C age change induced by the 11-yr cycle. The standard deviation introduced by 11-yr modulation around the long-term (e.g., decadal average) trend is a much smaller 8¹⁴C yr (as derived from a 2.5‰ peakto-peak sinusoidal Δ¹⁴C cycle).

---

I would think you would want to use 11 year moving average to reduce the effect of an 11 year cycle, so that each averaged value would be for a whole 11 year segment.This method does not appear in the IntCal04 article, so I would assume that Daniel4140 is using the older information based on his comment of making a previous model.He may be confusing methodology for 14C with that for tree ring counting.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : lastPEdited by RAZD, : link

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

Actually S/N ratio is a concept in science that is well understood.If signal to noise were a problem why are they using decadel samples when they could improve the S/N ratio by using annual samples?reference: RAZD's 2nd link in post #10

Could be. He seems to like playing with numbers willy-nilly, sort of like numerology applied to tree ring widths.--Percy

quote:

---

, however many of the data sets arise from unpublished research contributed to the International Tree Ring Data Bank

---

There you have it. It's alleged cold fusion all over again.
The artificial "0"'s in the file are the signal -- put there by the subjective judgment of Ferguson and company.
Edited by Daniel4140, : No reason given.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

Got any evidence of that?What did the researchers say when you contacted tham and asked about them? Oh, you're just going on your made-up fantasy, without evidence and without consulting anyone elseOhm and the data set ain't ferguson's. You are s-o-o-o-o slow.Let's see your justification for your climas.

Daniel,It might be hard to tell, but we're actually delighted that you're interested in analyzing the raw data. But it has to be a rational analysis, and you can't keep interjecting unsupported conclusions without losing all pretense of objectivity.Developing your own analysis techniques from scratch isn't likely to bear fruit, but if you want to continue trying then we'll continue giving you feedback about whether you seem to be doing anything meaningful.But you might be better off seeking flaws in existing analysis approaches. For instance, you could use the tree ring specialists own analysis software and seek contradictions, such as sequences of known date that correlate with tree ring sequences of other known, but different, dates. Or perhaps you could show that they're too lenient in the degree of correlation they seek.--Percy

Jon, you just see what you want to see, and nothing else. Ferguson's been dead a long time. He never published his primary data. The data you see is the evolution of his data put out by his students, who were compelled to publish some of it.
You could have guessed that I would have known that. It's no different than saying Moses wrote the Torah though he had help from his fellow Levites.
Your automatic disrespect of creationists argues loudly for the vile falseness of your own position. Your pickiness on a point not relevant to the proof of your position says your grasping at straws just to win by bullying. No honest person will buy that as an argument.

---

Creation 4140 B.C. Flood 2484 B.C
Exodus 1632 B.C. Online Chronology book: The Scroll of Biblical Chronology

Actually, I've shown far less automatic disrespect than you. I've been very respectful and polite, especially in the OP of this thread.You still haven't come up with any evidence for any of your claims.You still haven't attempted to validate any of your statistics.And you say I'm grasping at straws?? Well, that's just so ironic all I can do is post a picture of a bunny with a pancake on his head:

I ask again, Daniel, where are the ICR (or other organizations) published studies to show how tree ring dating is wrong?If you think you can do it why hasn't it been done and done again yet?Why do creationists avoid that question?

..the pot said to the kettle.I have been using google scholar to pull articles about this subject to inform myself and it seems that zero ring widths are quite common, understood due to periods of severe stress, and result in no problems whatsoever.There is quite a long history of this science. It began in the present (a century ago) with lots of opportunity to verify the method. I think the first validation came from the study of a stump and telling when the tree was felled which was confirmed by locating the lumberjack involved.It has grown ever since with multitudes of participants and data on all the continents. There is so much data from the white mountain area alone that they have a difficult time cataloging it all.By applying the technique to lumber used in construction in ancient archeological sites, floating or relative ages were attached to the various sites. But now the floaters are all part of one long chronology.The red pill isn't for everyone Daniel, steak tastes good even if it exists only in the mind of the consumer..