Excellent post Dave. You might have me on the ropes for the moment but I’m not down and out quite yet.
Just kidding. I think this speaks for itself:
WE’RE GETTING CLOSER TO UNDERSTANDING DENDRO – SURE LOOKS LIKE CIRCULARITY TO ME
BWE’s last post was around 3000 words (!) and I felt a little like gold prospector who got to San Francisco late. I had to search long and hard for the gold nuggets.
Jeez. 3000 words and you couldn’t find quotes to mine?
But I did find one.
I knew you could do it.
BWE supplied the following paper …
Ferguson, C.W. 1969. …
… I read it completely and you should too.
Do you suppose Dave, that people who read debate posts don’t read the attached papers? In fact, in the comment thread, ck1 asked for the link again because it didn’t work in the post. I supplied it there too. Just to let you in on a little secret… (people who follow arguments do read the citations. Have you ever noticed how many responses your links generate?)
Let me now quote some key statements from Ferguson. … Let me highlight this again …
The availability of datable wood in the 9000-year range has been indicated by radiocarbon analysis.
Wow. There it is. Right there in the abstract.
Exactly what Dr. Batten wrote…
Wow. Just wow. So it seems that Dr. Batten is right…. [list of stuff]
Trying to answer these questions in this order presents an interesting problem. But, let’s see if I can deal with them all together.
Answer: This paper is from 1969. The reason I supplied it was to show that Batten, in standard creationist fashion, is dishonest in:
Specifically equivocating pinus radiata with pinus longaeva because tiger and lions can produce offspring? Dang I’m just going to get a beer ready for when you bring that one up. Just so you know, the reason Bristlecones are good for 14C calibration is the environment they live in:
And then I posted the bit about why bristlecones are ideal for dendro. In fact, I used it as evidence to support my point that bristlecones are not the same thing as pinus radiata regardles off whether a horny whale can make a wholphin. So, go back and see if you disagree with that statement. Look at the article again and see if your disagreement casts any doubt on the conclusion that “the reason Bristlecones are good for 14C calibration is the environment they live in”, specifically that you think that you can equivocate pinus radiata with pinus longaeva because tiger and lions can produce offspring. Or perhaps for some other reason.
Whatever. I’m easy. Anyway, does that help?
The links I have supplied that speak to the issues you raised are:
Stuiver, Minze, Bernard Kromer, Bernard Becker and C. W. Ferguson (1986). Radiocarbon Age Calibration back to 13,300 Years BP and the 14C Age Matching of the German Oak and US Bristlecone Pine Chronologies Radiocarbon (1986) Volume 28, Number 2B: 939-943.
This link here
has a bunch of individual dating curves linked. You could check those and discover that for circularity to be a problem each would need to be the actual reference for each other. But that’s not the case now, is it? They are each independently drawn and then cross-checked against each other. Do you want to know why they are cross-checked against each other? Well, I’ll tell you. To determine the accuracy of each other. The cool thing about dendro is that the rings, once calibrated against ice-core data, and varve data, can be 14C dated and then that date can be referenced not only to the dendrologically derived age (guess what, they have some discrepancies) but the dendro ages can be cross-referenced against other techniques to check for it’s own accuracy. Since some climactic factors are recorded in periodic stratified phenomena like ice-cores, corals, marine sediments, varves, tree-rings, certian cave formations and others, those climactic events actually provide another cross-reference for dendro age determination too. Once the dendro age is determined through cross calibration, it works as a great way to calibrate 14C since the rings can be analyzed with 14C techniques.
So, does that help?
Just to give you a little more help, Stuiver et.al. do use 14C to check the calibration on their various periodic phenomena but, er, that’s the point, isn’t it?
Or this one which also demonstrates the remarkable power of consilience. These guys cross checked all their data between various curves too.
A new Greenland Ice Core Chronology (GICC05) based on multi-parameter counting of annual layers has been obtained for the last 42 ka. Here we compare the glacial part of the new time scale, which is based entirely on records from the NorthGRIP ice core, to existing time scales and reference horizons covering the same period. These include the GRIP and NorthGRIP modelled time scales, the Meese-Sowers GISP2 counted time scale, the ShackletonÃ¢â‚¬â€œFairbanks GRIP time scale (SFCP04) based on 14C calibration of a marine core, the Hulu Cave record, three volcanic reference horizons, and the Laschamp geomagnetic excursion event occurring around Greenland Interstadial 10. GICC05 is generally in good long-term agreement with the existing Greenland ice core chronologies and with the Hulu Cave record, but on shorter time scales there are significant discrepancies. Around the Last Glacial Maximum there is a more than 1 ka age difference between GICC05 and SFCP04 and a more than 0.5 ka discrepancy in the same direction between GICC05 and the age of a recently identified tephra layer in the NorthGRIP ice core. Both SFCP04 and the tephra age are based on 14C-dated marine cores and fixed marine reservoir ages. For the Laschamp event, GICC05 agrees with a recent independent dating within the uncertainties.
Quaternary Science Reviews
The Greenland Ice Core Chronology 2005, 15Ã¢â‚¬â€œ42 ka.
Part 2: comparison to other records
Anders Svensson, Katrine K. Andersen, Matthias Bigler, Henrik B. Clausen, Dorthe Dahl-Jensen, Siwan M. Davies, Sigfus J. Johnsen, Raimund Muscheler,Sune O. Rasmussen, Regine Rothlisbergerd, JÃƒÂ¸rgen Peder Steffensen, Bo.M. Vinther
Received 20 February 2006; accepted 6 August 2006
(sorry for my lax effort in citing correctly. It’s easier to cut and paste as you well know.)
Oh yeah. This one:
Which uses this graph:
Quaternary Science Reviews 24 (2005) 1781Ã¢â‚¬â€œ1796
Radiocarbon calibration curve spanning 0 to 50,000 years BP based
on paired 230Th/ 234U/ 238U and 14C dates on pristine corals
Richard G. Fairbanks, Richard A. Mortlock, Tzu-Chien Chiu, Li Cao,Alexey Kaplan, Thomas P. Guilderson, Todd W. Fairbanks, Arthur L. Bloom, Pieter M. Grootes, Marie-JoseÃ‚Â´ Nadeau
Received 24 January 2005; accepted 15 April 2005
Also points to the same problem. Namely, that for dendrochronology to be circular, it has to be the sole source for 14C callibration and 14C calibration needs to be the sole source for establishing sample ages in dead trees. Unfortunately, that doesn’t appear to be what’s happening.
Can you imagine what that conference would have looked like where the guy stands up and presents his paper and some silly grad student in the audience raises her hand and asks, “Sir? Isn’t that circular? Did you try to calibrate your dates with any other kinds of sequences?”
And the guy says, “Well, no, actually.”
Anyway, that seems to put the circularity argument to rest for the time being. Let’s move on.
Now, BWE … I am happy for you to try to show me why this is not really what it looks like it is. But what it LOOKS like is ……
8) It seems the radiocarbon people don’t care about Yamaguchi
OK, BWE. Please focus on my specific questions and spare me the 2800 words on why creationists are bozos in general, how many beers you are winning, talk about strippers, etc. <1000 words which are laser-beam focused on this Ferguson paper (and possibly the Schulman papers referenced in this paper), would be just dandy.
Well, I’ve just put the stripper on retainer and billed her to your account. I also billed a keg of Bridgeport IPA to your account and I’m pounding one every time I laugh at your attempt to obfuscate in the creationist fashion what is actually fairy simple logic.
The Yamaguchi paper you cited concludes:
So I’m not sure you are reading the same thing as I am. Is this a problem with Dendro? Is he claiming Ferguson reached inaccurate conclusions?
I think you should say “What it looks like to me”. Rather than “what it looks like.”
At any rate, this is immaterial to the circularity argument. However it seems material to the third point in my proposition:
3. Some creationists, in what looks like an effort to shore up their financial base 1 by assuring their followers that science couldnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t possibly be right since it contradicts the Bible, spend a fair amount of effort writing sciency sounding articles and editorials that draw heavily on rhetorical games, logical fallacies, lies, quote-mines, making bold statements and wagers without following through and lots and lots of sheer stupidity. Fortunately for them, the base is primed to believe. And, also fortunately for them, their believers arenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t typically scientists (although this is sometimes a chore to figure out).
where you are the creationist in this case.
Over to you!