Total Posts:22|Showing Posts:1-22
Jump to topic:

Help Understanding This Study

GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 9:42:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
The study: http://www.academia.edu...

It discusses a 11,919 record. I'm convinced that this record partially relies on C14 dating, but someone keeps insisting that it does not rely on C14 at all.

Which is it?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 12:18:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Whoever puts in genuine effort to helping me out here will get a vote on anyone of their debates that needs votes.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 1:01:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Both. The PPC chronology is split into two parts. The younger part is linked dendrochronologically to the HOC chronology based on significant year-to-year correlation and longer-term trends which extends the absolute chronology back 11,332 years. Dendrochronological links between the two parts of the PPC chronology aren't currently strongly supported due to few specimens, so while there is an absolutely dated chronology extending back 11,919 years the last 600 or so rely on some consilience with radiocarbon dating.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 1:20:42 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:01:19 PM, Enji wrote:
Both. The PPC chronology is split into two parts. The younger part is linked dendrochronologically to the HOC chronology based on significant year-to-year correlation and longer-term trends which extends the absolute chronology back 11,332 years. Dendrochronological links between the two parts of the PPC chronology aren't currently strongly supported due to few specimens, so while there is an absolutely dated chronology extending back 11,919 years the last 600 or so rely on some consilience with radiocarbon dating.

So ~600 years of the 11,919 record rely at least partially on C14 dating?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 1:39:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:20:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:01:19 PM, Enji wrote:
Both. The PPC chronology is split into two parts. The younger part is linked dendrochronologically to the HOC chronology based on significant year-to-year correlation and longer-term trends which extends the absolute chronology back 11,332 years. Dendrochronological links between the two parts of the PPC chronology aren't currently strongly supported due to few specimens, so while there is an absolutely dated chronology extending back 11,919 years the last 600 or so rely on some consilience with radiocarbon dating.

So ~600 years of the 11,919 record rely at least partially on C14 dating?

Yes, dendrochronology was used to confirm that the two samples are at least 11,332 years old, but this method supplied only a minimum for the range, not an accurate measurement. It was reconfirmed with greater accuracy using 14C dating.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 1:46:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:39:10 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:20:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:01:19 PM, Enji wrote:
Both. The PPC chronology is split into two parts. The younger part is linked dendrochronologically to the HOC chronology based on significant year-to-year correlation and longer-term trends which extends the absolute chronology back 11,332 years. Dendrochronological links between the two parts of the PPC chronology aren't currently strongly supported due to few specimens, so while there is an absolutely dated chronology extending back 11,919 years the last 600 or so rely on some consilience with radiocarbon dating.

So ~600 years of the 11,919 record rely at least partially on C14 dating?

Yes, dendrochronology was used to confirm that the two samples are at least 11,332 years old, but this method supplied only a minimum for the range, not an accurate measurement. It was reconfirmed with greater accuracy using 14C dating.

Thanks very much!

...Do you two have any debates that lack votes?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 1:48:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:46:48 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:39:10 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:20:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:01:19 PM, Enji wrote:
Both. The PPC chronology is split into two parts. The younger part is linked dendrochronologically to the HOC chronology based on significant year-to-year correlation and longer-term trends which extends the absolute chronology back 11,332 years. Dendrochronological links between the two parts of the PPC chronology aren't currently strongly supported due to few specimens, so while there is an absolutely dated chronology extending back 11,919 years the last 600 or so rely on some consilience with radiocarbon dating.

So ~600 years of the 11,919 record rely at least partially on C14 dating?

Yes, dendrochronology was used to confirm that the two samples are at least 11,332 years old, but this method supplied only a minimum for the range, not an accurate measurement. It was reconfirmed with greater accuracy using 14C dating.

Thanks very much!

...Do you two have any debates that lack votes?

Not I, thanks for the offer though!
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 1:55:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The first line of the abstract says, "We present an overview of the extended Hohenheim oak chronology (HOC) and the dendrochronologically dated Preboreal pinetree-ring chronology (PPC). Both provide an absolute, annual time frame of the Holocene, extending into the Younger Dryas (YD)back to 11,919 BP." The HOC and the PPC are entirely tree ring data, no carbon dating.

The reference to carbon dating is for segments of tree ring chronologies older than 11,919 years. Those are continuous records, but the starting point is unknown from the tree rings alone, so carbon dating is used to find the segment of time they cover. Multiple points can be carbon dated along the floating sequence to improve the accuracy.

The authors refer to the older sequences by the older time periods they cover. Figure 1 shows continuous coverage by tree ring data through 11,919. The gap in tree ring data is shown on the graph. The caption mentions that the older data in the PPC is tenuously linked. That's explained in the paper: "The dendrochronologicalmatch of the two parts of thePPC around 11,300 BP exists, but it is still tentative sincethe replicationof the PPC in this range is low." That's saying that the data is rock solid out to 11,300 years, but they would like more tree samples for the oldest 600 years.

The scientists want an accuracy one year, and if there is too little data they are uncertain of that accuracy.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 2:09:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:55:49 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
( ... )

So ~600 years of the 11,919 record rely at least partially on C14 dating?
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 3:14:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:20:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:01:19 PM, Enji wrote:
Both. The PPC chronology is split into two parts. The younger part is linked dendrochronologically to the HOC chronology based on significant year-to-year correlation and longer-term trends which extends the absolute chronology back 11,332 years. Dendrochronological links between the two parts of the PPC chronology aren't currently strongly supported due to few specimens, so while there is an absolutely dated chronology extending back 11,919 years the last 600 or so rely on some consilience with radiocarbon dating.

So 600 years of the 11,919 record rely at least partially on C14 dating?

In this study that's more or less accurate -- while an absolute chronology independent of C14 dating existed connecting the two parts of the PPC chronology, the connection was only based on a few trees and so confidence in the connection relies upon C14 data. The dendrochronological linkage, however, has since been strengthened (and the range of the PPC extended) by the discovery of new trees. [https://journals.uair.arizona.edu...]
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 3:17:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 3:14:49 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:20:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:01:19 PM, Enji wrote:
Both. The PPC chronology is split into two parts. The younger part is linked dendrochronologically to the HOC chronology based on significant year-to-year correlation and longer-term trends which extends the absolute chronology back 11,332 years. Dendrochronological links between the two parts of the PPC chronology aren't currently strongly supported due to few specimens, so while there is an absolutely dated chronology extending back 11,919 years the last 600 or so rely on some consilience with radiocarbon dating.

So 600 years of the 11,919 record rely at least partially on C14 dating?

In this study that's more or less accurate -- while an absolute chronology independent of C14 dating existed connecting the two parts of the PPC chronology, the connection was only based on a few trees and so confidence in the connection relies upon C14 data. The dendrochronological linkage, however, has since been strengthened (and the range of the PPC extended) by the discovery of new trees. [https://journals.uair.arizona.edu...]

Ah ok, I understand why you couldn't give a yes/no answer now. But, I think it's safe to say that I was correct in my original interpretation? (disregarding any new discoveries since the article was published)
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
PotBelliedGeek
Posts: 4,298
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 3:19:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 1:55:49 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The first line of the abstract says, "We present an overview of the extended Hohenheim oak chronology (HOC) and the dendrochronologically dated Preboreal pinetree-ring chronology (PPC). Both provide an absolute, annual time frame of the Holocene, extending into the Younger Dryas (YD)back to 11,919 BP." The HOC and the PPC are entirely tree ring data, no carbon dating.

The reference to carbon dating is for segments of tree ring chronologies older than 11,919 years. Those are continuous records, but the starting point is unknown from the tree rings alone, so carbon dating is used to find the segment of time they cover. Multiple points can be carbon dated along the floating sequence to improve the accuracy.

The authors refer to the older sequences by the older time periods they cover. Figure 1 shows continuous coverage by tree ring data through 11,919. The gap in tree ring data is shown on the graph. The caption mentions that the older data in the PPC is tenuously linked. That's explained in the paper: "The dendrochronologicalmatch of the two parts of thePPC around 11,300 BP exists, but it is still tentative sincethe replicationof the PPC in this range is low." That's saying that the data is rock solid out to 11,300 years, but they would like more tree samples for the oldest 600 years.

The scientists want an accuracy one year, and if there is too little data they are uncertain of that accuracy.

Read the entire study Roy, not just the abstract. It explicitly states that dendro analysis takes it back 11332, and 14C dating offers a more accurate measurement to the accuracy of +/- 12.
Religion Forum Ambassador

HUFFLEPUFF FOR LIFE!!!!!!!!!!!!
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 3:20:26 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 3:17:06 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 3:14:49 PM, Enji wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:20:42 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:01:19 PM, Enji wrote:
Both. The PPC chronology is split into two parts. The younger part is linked dendrochronologically to the HOC chronology based on significant year-to-year correlation and longer-term trends which extends the absolute chronology back 11,332 years. Dendrochronological links between the two parts of the PPC chronology aren't currently strongly supported due to few specimens, so while there is an absolutely dated chronology extending back 11,919 years the last 600 or so rely on some consilience with radiocarbon dating.

So 600 years of the 11,919 record rely at least partially on C14 dating?

In this study that's more or less accurate -- while an absolute chronology independent of C14 dating existed connecting the two parts of the PPC chronology, the connection was only based on a few trees and so confidence in the connection relies upon C14 data. The dendrochronological linkage, however, has since been strengthened (and the range of the PPC extended) by the discovery of new trees. [https://journals.uair.arizona.edu...]


Ah ok, I understand why you couldn't give a yes/no answer now. But, I think it's safe to say that I was correct in my original interpretation? (disregarding any new discoveries since the article was published)

I'd say so.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 5:04:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 3:19:38 PM, PotBelliedGeek wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:55:49 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
The first line of the abstract says, "We present an overview of the extended Hohenheim oak chronology (HOC) and the dendrochronologically dated Preboreal pinetree-ring chronology (PPC). Both provide an absolute, annual time frame of the Holocene, extending into the Younger Dryas (YD)back to 11,919 BP." The HOC and the PPC are entirely tree ring data, no carbon dating.

The reference to carbon dating is for segments of tree ring chronologies older than 11,919 years. Those are continuous records, but the starting point is unknown from the tree rings alone, so carbon dating is used to find the segment of time they cover. Multiple points can be carbon dated along the floating sequence to improve the accuracy.

The authors refer to the older sequences by the older time periods they cover. Figure 1 shows continuous coverage by tree ring data through 11,919. The gap in tree ring data is shown on the graph. The caption mentions that the older data in the PPC is tenuously linked. That's explained in the paper: "The dendrochronologicalmatch of the two parts of thePPC around 11,300 BP exists, but it is still tentative sincethe replicationof the PPC in this range is low." That's saying that the data is rock solid out to 11,300 years, but they would like more tree samples for the oldest 600 years.

The scientists want an accuracy one year, and if there is too little data they are uncertain of that accuracy.

Read the entire study Roy, not just the abstract. It explicitly states that dendro analysis takes it back 11332, and 14C dating offers a more accurate measurement to the accuracy of +/- 12.

I concur. The HOC (Oak) is absolutely connected and goes back to 10,430

a #oating oak-chronology from the river Rhine has been
linked to the absolute oak master chronology extending
it back to 10,430 BP


The younger part of the PPC (Pine) connects to the HOC and proves back to 11,332

The younger part is linked
dendrochronologically to the absolute HOC (see below)
extending the absolute, tree-ring based, time scale back
to 11,332 BP (Spurk et al., 1998).


The older part of the pine samples, does have a dendrochronical match to the younger PPC, but it is not large enough sample match to be definitive. So 14C measurements help substantiate the linkage to the older PPC.

The dendrochronological match of the two parts of the
PPC around 11,300 BP exists, but it is still tentative since
the replication of the PPC in this range is low. At present,
the linkage relies on supporting 14C-measurements.
Based on this link, the PPC starts at 11,919.


In short since the linkage from young PPC to old PPC is not fully dendrochronologically substantiated, I would say we are back as far as 11,332. If you accept that linkage to fill the gap the old PPC goes back to around 12,000
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 5:13:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Looking at that, I guess I don't concur. However, if one has calibrated the 14C method back 11,334 years using tree rings, what is the risk to connect a set of older rings that goes back to 11,919. The connection which has some but not enough dendrochronical connections is validated using 14C. We are only talking a few hundred of years.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 5:28:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 2:09:11 PM, GarretKadeDupre wrote:
At 2/21/2014 1:55:49 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
( ... )

So ~600 years of the 11,919 record rely at least partially on C14 dating?

The 600 years is not dated via C14. It is a data set of actual tree rings. The C14 is used to validate those tree rings can be appended at the end of the tree rings ending at 11,332

They have to be older than 11,332 or they would match the rings younger than that.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 10:04:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I think we are all agreed that the data to 11,332 is based entirely on tree rings. Right?

The last 600 years comes from pine trees, and there is weakness in overlap of the pine tree data around 11,300. the pine data matches the oak data before that time, so that's not in doubt. The paper says the pine tree rings match across the 11,300 splice, but the match is tentative and relies upon C14 data. I interpret that as meaning that there is tree data for the whole period, but there is uncertainty as to the exact matchup, so the investigators are using C14 data to help align the matching band sequences. For example, there might be two time offsets in the data that seem to align equally well, so they use C14 to select the one of the two. I don't know if that is what happened, but it has to be something that explains why continuous tree data is tenuous in a way that C14 resolves.

Without calibration C14 dating has an error of 800 years for 5000 year old objects. With calibration that is reduced to 50 years. Tree ring data is good as a calibration standard because it absolute -- it counts back from the present-- and it is quite accurate. The goal is one year, but that's difficult to achieve for dates beyond 10,000 years.

Another way to get C14 calibration data is with sediment layers (varves). Sediment layers from a lake in Japan provide data for a continuous 29,000 year period. The problem is figuring out when the floating 29,000 segment starts. A calibration curve can be computed for the segment by itself, then:

The absolute age of the Lake Suigetsu floating varve chronology was determined by wiggle-matching 22 radiocarbon determinations from the younger part of the sequence with the German oak radiocarbon calibration curve. On the basis of this match, the Lake Suigetsu timescale covers the absolute age range from 8830 to 37 930 cal. years BP

Mike Walker. Quaternary Dating Methods (p. 140).

So that provides a C14 calibration curve back 37,930 years. Note that other types of radiometric dating do not require calibration curves. Radiocarbon dating is of special interest because it yields higher accurate for recent dates.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/21/2014 10:53:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 10:04:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
I think we are all agreed that the data to 11,332 is based entirely on tree rings. Right?

Yeah.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 12:21:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/21/2014 10:04:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

The last 600 years comes from pine trees, and there is weakness in overlap of the pine tree data around 11,300. the pine data matches the oak data before that time, so that's not in doubt. The paper says the pine tree rings match across the 11,300 splice, but the match is tentative and relies upon C14 data. I interpret that as meaning that there is tree data for the whole period, but there is uncertainty as to the exact matchup, so the investigators are using C14 data to help align the matching band sequences. For example, there might be two time offsets in the data that seem to align equally well, so they use C14 to select the one of the two. I don't know if that is what happened, but it has to be something that explains why continuous tree data is tenuous in a way that C14 resolves.

You are correct that the latter part of the pine chronology as described in this study is not floating and is connected to the earlier part of the chronology. However, as you quoted earlier , there are few samples combining the two and without sufficient correlation across different samples the HOC and PPC chronology cannot be extended back 11,919 years using only tree-ring data. The linkage, however, can be supported by correlation with other data (such as 14C, 13C and 2H) which is why the authors state in the abstract and the conclusion that the combined HOC and PPC form an absolute chronology extending back 11,919 years.
slo1
Posts: 4,354
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 11:20:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 12:21:27 AM, Enji wrote:
At 2/21/2014 10:04:17 PM, RoyLatham wrote:

The last 600 years comes from pine trees, and there is weakness in overlap of the pine tree data around 11,300. the pine data matches the oak data before that time, so that's not in doubt. The paper says the pine tree rings match across the 11,300 splice, but the match is tentative and relies upon C14 data. I interpret that as meaning that there is tree data for the whole period, but there is uncertainty as to the exact matchup, so the investigators are using C14 data to help align the matching band sequences. For example, there might be two time offsets in the data that seem to align equally well, so they use C14 to select the one of the two. I don't know if that is what happened, but it has to be something that explains why continuous tree data is tenuous in a way that C14 resolves.

You are correct that the latter part of the pine chronology as described in this study is not floating and is connected to the earlier part of the chronology. However, as you quoted earlier , there are few samples combining the two and without sufficient correlation across different samples the HOC and PPC chronology cannot be extended back 11,919 years using only tree-ring data. The linkage, however, can be supported by correlation with other data (such as 14C, 13C and 2H) which is why the authors state in the abstract and the conclusion that the combined HOC and PPC form an absolute chronology extending back 11,919 years.

Agreed.

I would like to reiterate that the older pine samples required 14C to strengthen the tie to append to where the younger samples stopped at 11,300.

If the use of 14C is in question, it still would not imply that the older pine samples are younger than 11,300. It would be more likely that they are older than 11,300 should the 14C be in question, otherwise those 600 years of rings would match samples between 11,300 and present.
GarretKadeDupre
Posts: 2,023
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/22/2014 2:56:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/22/2014 11:20:56 AM, slo1 wrote:
I would like to reiterate that the older pine samples required 14C to strengthen the tie to append to where the younger samples stopped at 11,300.

If the use of 14C is in question, it still would not imply that the older pine samples are younger than 11,300. It would be more likely that they are older than 11,300 should the 14C be in question, otherwise those 600 years of rings would match samples between 11,300 and present.

Agreed. I wonder if Roy does too.
Proof that people witnessed living dinosaurs:
http://www.debate.org...