So how reliable are the C14 calibration methods?

[Zakuska]

On all my threads about C14 dating the resident board sliderule-monkey Tarski has claimed how accurate our C14 calibration methods make C14 dating...

So lets see what the tree ring data actually tells us.

Anatolia

"There is currently only one (substantial) master dendrochronology from anywhere in the Ancient Near East. Hence this master dendrochronology has great importance. This master is from Anatolia. “Anatolia” is a geographical term, roughly designating modern Turkey. A master dendrochronology for Gordion (39.7 °N, 32.0 °E), in central Anatolia, was first developed in the 1970s. This master dendrochronology, however, does not extend continuously from the present to the past. The master has been anchored in time—i.e. dated—largely via radiocarbon (originally, the master was dated via archaeo-history). In what follows, much of the work that has been done in Anatolian tree-ring matching is reviewed. The conclusions are disturbing, and have implications for tree ring studies generally.” - Douglas Keenan ²⁰

Turkish dendrochronology is quite interesting and relevant to this discussion and the understanding of the science of dendrochronology as a whole. One especially interesting example has to do with the work of Kuniholm and his dating of wood from the city gateway at Tille Höyük - an ancient city. What happened was that the t-value wiggle-match produced by computer analysis came up with not one, but three matches of 1258, 1140, and 981 B.C. - each with a greater than 99.9% certainty.¹⁹ Notice the figure detailing false matches from Tille Höyük at right. Also notice the alignment of the Tille Höyük sequence with the Gordion master sequence (figure above) and with a completely random sequence. Which one has a closer match? It all seems rather subjective does it not? - and this is done with computer assistance.

Consider what happens when computers aren't used to judge the statistical value of a "match". A "visual match" (see figure below) was published in 1998 (Wiener, 1998, p. 314) dealing with wood from a ancient shipwreck that was dated against the Gordion Master via visual matching alone. This match was published by both Kuniholm and Manning. In 1999, a letter was sent to various e-mail lists, and also to the principal investigator in Anatolian tree-ring studies, pointing out some of the problems already listed (especially the statistical aspects) and concluding that there was no tree-ring match for the shipwreck wood [James, 1999]. Two years later, in the next major paper in Anatolian tree-ring studies, the tree-ring date for the shipwreck was acknowledged to be “not especially strong” [Manning et al., 2001: n.38].²⁰

Consider that perhaps desire plays more of a part than actual detached science when it comes to dendrochronology. In this light, note that dendrochronologists working in Hohenheim, Germany, were proven wrong three times in the mid 1990s, each time after very strong assertions of reliability.²⁰

Another problem is that wood with less than about 100 rings is notoriously poor when it comes to statistical matches with tree ring comparisons. It is most interesting then that the Bronze Age gateway at the Tille Höyük (mentioned above) was constructed with the use of many trees with few rings. Of the many specimens that were available, 26 were matched against each other to form a master sequence. The problem is that among the 26 specimens in this master chronology, 6 had fewer than 40 rings and 21 specimens had fewer than 60 rings. Only two had more than 100 rings and their overlap comprised only 33 rings. Despite this master being much acclaimed, its reliability is significantly flawed - so much so that it is statistically "worthless" as a master sequence.²⁰ Douglas Keenan laments:

"The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?"

20

<SNIP>

Another interesting experiment was performed by LaMarche (1974). LaMarche measured living trees on two sites in Nevada, both on the same side of the same mountain. One site was just 130 meters higher in elevation than the other, near the tree line. The ring widths of the trees from the two sites showed no general correlation whatsoever. Hillam (1980) also compared master dendrochronologies from two sites at York, England, with a master dendrochronology from Exeter, also in England. One York site showed an Exeter

t

-score wiggle-match of only 0.5 while the second York site returned a

t

-score of 3.5. Why such a marked difference? What does this say about the statistical significance of such "matches"?

20

19. Kuniholm, P. -- 1993: Appendix in G. Summers: Tille Huyuk 4, pp. 179-90

20. Douglas J. Keenan, Anatolian tree-ring studies are untrustworthy, The Limehouse Cut, London E14 6N, United Kingdom; doug.keenan@informath.org, 16 March 2004 ( http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf ) See also: Douglas Keenan, Why Radiocarbon Dates Downwind from the Mediterranean are too Early, Radiocarbon, Vol 44, Nr 1, 2002, p 225–237 ( http://www.informath.org/14C02a.pdf )

http://www.detecting...bon14.html#Tree

I don't know about you but to me getting 3 different dates all with a 99.9 percent of certianty doesn't seem very accurate OR reliable!

[Zakuska]

Heres one of the primary sources for that information:

http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf

(5.) Matching trees of different species is naturally more error prone than

matching trees of the same species. The Gordion master dendrochronology is

composed of juniper. Trees of other species, though, have been matched against this.

For examples, the shipwreck wood is cedar and the gateway wood is oak. Some work

has been done with modern trees to gain some understanding of the issue [Kuniholm,

1996; Newton, 2004: ch.2]. This work, though, focussed on wood with over 500 rings:

so many rings makes matching much easier, but it is unrealistic in most archaeological

contexts. A good understanding of the issue would require much more work (also to

understand how different species react under differing environmental conditions).

The results of these modern studies don't look too promising for Tarski's claims on the accuracy of Tree ring analysis!

[Vance]

And to think that I was excoriated for not genuflecting to C14 dating in a not so long ago thread.

Zak,

The worshipers of C14 aren't going to take lightly your poo pooing their religion. Here come the long knives 5 4 3 2 . . .

[semlogo]

On all my threads about C14 dating the resident board sliderule-monkey Tarski has claimed how accurate our C14 calibration methods make C14 dating...

So lets see what the tree ring data actually tells us.

http://www.detecting...bon14.html#Tree

I don't know about you but to me getting 3 different dates all with a 99.9 percent of certianty doesn't seem very accurate OR reliable!

Do you really need to spam the forum with the same ill-informed drivel over and over again? I mean, why not at least keep it in one thread?

[Tarski]

On all my threads about C14 dating the resident board sliderule-monkey Tarski has claimed how accurate our C14 calibration methods make C14 dating...

Really?

Just how accurate did I say they were and for which circumstances? What tolerances did I give? Show me the post.

Is there a difference between a single test on a single item and the conclusions that are drawn form dating several independent samples and perhaps using several different techniques?

C14 dating by itself on a single item is not all that accurate if used alone on something that is tens of thousands of years old. But the accuracy is what scientists generally claim. They are accurate enough to exclude young earth creationism and accurate enough (when many samples are tested and a trend observed) to leave not much hope hope for BoM horses and elephants (of course there is some hope--I personally don't car either way).

They are accurate enough that anti-evolutionists will find nothing to help their cause.

The inaccuracies have nothing to do with decay rates of C14 being variable.

Now, all of these questions deal with mathematical statistics, probability and stochastic processes. In another thread, I demonstrated that you have severe fundamental confusions about how to think about such matters. More generally, you show a lack of understanding of the epistemological stance of science. Go read my post.

Personally, I think you embarrass not only yourself but your church. Many LDS here cringe at your anti-science fundamentalist rantings.

[Zakuska]

And to think that I was excoriated for not genuflecting to C14 dating in a not so long ago thread.

Zak,

The worshipers of C14 aren't going to take lightly your poo pooing their religion. Here come the long knives 5 4 3 2 . . .

Well vance... slide-rule-monkeys with knives aren't a very good combination!

[Tarski]

And to think that I was excoriated for not genuflecting to C14 dating in a not so long ago thread.

Zak is wrong and confused. His references don't have the significance he hopes for and his own analysis (as I just showed elsewhere) is conceptually confused from the get go.

[Zakuska]

Vance,

Notice how Tarski continues his Ad Hominem attacks rather than dealing with the data?

Perhaps he would be so generous in addressing the data and tell us how Modern slide-rule-monkey techniquies can produce 3 different dates with 99.9% certian attached to each of them?

What happened was that the t-value wiggle-match produced by computer analysis came up with not one, but three matches of 1258, 1140, and 981 B.C. - each with a greater than 99.9% certainty.¹⁹

[Vance]

Vance,

Notice how Tarski continues his Ad Hominem attacks rather than dealing with the data?

Perhaps he would be so generous in addressing the data and tell us how Modern slide-rule-monkey techniquies can produce 3 different dates with 99.9% certian attached to each of them?

Zak,

Having 3 different dates that are 99.9% certain isn't the problem you think it is.

You see, with three choices you can pick the one that best fits your presumptions.

Voila!!! the data confirm what you already "knew".

[Tarski]

Heres one of the primary sources for that information:

http://www.informath.org/ATSU04a.pdf

The results of these modern studies don't look too promising for Tarski's claims on the accuracy of Tree ring analysis!

What were my precise claims for accuracy Zak?? Plus or minus what? In what circumstances?

You are implying more than I said. You are not responding (or conceding) to the things I have analyzed already (most recently on atomic clocks).

You continue to pretend like you have shown the decay rates of C14 to be variable in terrestrial conditions.

There is too much unfinished business for me to go on to your next supposed find to explain yet again why your effort is both pointless and confused.

It is especially annoying because you are just getting this by reading creationist websites. You are just spamming the forum here and even LDS posters are beginning to say so.

[Zakuska]

Zak,

Having 3 different dates that are 99.9% certain isn't the problem you think it is.

You see, with three choices you can pick the one that best fits your presumptions.

Voila!!! the data confirm what you already "knew".

I like the lament from tree ring analysts themselves...

"The central conclusion is clear: Anatolian tree-ring studies are very untrustworthy and the problems with the work should be plain to anyone who has familiarity with the field. This is a serious matter. Consider that the work has been published in respected research journals and been ongoing for many years. How could this have happened?"²⁰

[Tarski]

You see, with three choices you can pick the one that best fits your presumptions.

And yet....they didn't do that. Creationists would of course, but scientist should not.

Instead methodological problems and other issues will be honestly unraveled.

[Zakuska]

And yet....they didn't do that. Creationists would of course, but scientist should not.

Instead methodological problems and other issues will be honestly unraveled.

Tarski once again with his favorite fallacy!

Thats why...Professional dendrochronologist (aka Scientists) where proven wrong 3 different times in the mid 1990s?

Consider that perhaps desire plays more of a part than actual detached science when it comes to dendrochronology. In this light, note that dendrochronologists working in Hohenheim, Germany, were proven wrong three times in the mid 1990s, each time after very strong assertions of reliability.²⁰

So much for "detached science" and any claims of reliability?!

[Vance]

Creationists would of course, . . .

?????

Oh, I get it. Those that believe that there is a God are naturally dishonest.

. . . but scientist should not.

WOW!! you say that with such confidence.

Are you afraid to say "but scientists would not"? Why the lack of faith?

[Jason]

Zak is wrong and confused. His references don't have the significance he hopes for and his own analysis (as I just showed elsewhere) is conceptually confused from the get go.

Which other thread did you use to show that this problem with the tree ring studies isn't all that big a deal?

[semlogo]

?????

Oh, I get it. Those that believe that there is a God are naturally dishonest.

WOW!! you say that with such confidence.

Are you afraid to say "but scientists would not"? Why the lack of faith?

You present two fallacies here. One is that all believers in God are creationists.

The other fallacy is ignoring the well-documented dishonesty of creationists. Bad Christians, all.

[Zakuska]

You present two fallacies here. One is that all believers in God are creationists.

The other fallacy is ignoring the well-documented dishonesty of creationists. Bad Christians, all.

Same could be said of the scientists...

Consider that perhaps desire plays more of a part than actual detached science when it comes to dendrochronology. In this light, note that dendrochronologists working in Hohenheim, Germany, were proven wrong three times in the mid 1990s, each time after very strong assertions of reliability.²⁰

Perhaps some of the "scientists" would like to confront the data?

In what follows, much of the work that has been done in Anatolian tree-ring matching is reviewed. The conclusions are disturbing, and have implications for tree ring studies generally.

[Tarski]

?????

Oh, I get it. Those that believe that there is a God are naturally dishonest.

WOW!! you say that with such confidence.

Are you afraid to say "but scientists would not"? Why the lack of faith?

Creationists websites are full of what looks like dishonesty (else are they really that idiotic?).

Isolated papers by individual scientists, especially relatively obscure ones, are only significant in the long run after scrutiny by other scientists (and the test of time). That is why it will always be easy for creationists to hunt down isolated paper that seem to help their cause. Of course, if you want to know what kind of science is worthy of our strong but tentative belief, you should look for what has been established by multiple investigations etc.

The old, "look what this scientists just said" game is just a rhetorical ploy.

There a re tons of papers like this around, that usual fad away. Papers or experiments that seem to show faster than light travel, or cold fusion etc are easy to find. Really bad papers are easy to find. Focusing on the fringe is a typical anti-science ploy.

Open a serious well regarded textbook on a subject if you want to learn something. Zak has no interest in learning science. He is only playing an ill conceived anti-science campaign without regard for truth and without any respect for those who know what they are talking about. Its all about calling into question scientific knowledge so he can justify his belief in empirically unsupported religious notions about Nephites and talking snakes.

He should not be taken seriously.

[Zakuska]

Open a serious well regarded textbook on a subject if you want to learn something. Zak has no interest in learning science. He is only playing an ill conceived anti-science campaign without regard for truth and without any respect for those who know what they are talking about. Its all about calling into question scientific knowledge so he can justify his belief in empirically unsupported religious notions about Nephites and talking snakes.

Once again Tarski with the Ad Hominem attacks.

Please confront that Data Tarski...

Accordind to the Scientists themselves PEER REVIEWING the Tree Ring data and methods employed to create the master Catalog are questioning its accuracy and methods.

[Vance]

You present two fallacies here. One is that all believers in God are creationists.

Good point. Only the dishonest believers in God are creationists.

The other fallacy is ignoring the well-documented dishonesty of creationists.

Right, ALL creationists are dishonest. And a generalization like that isn't a fallacy, right?

[semlogo]

Same could be said of the scientists...

Perhaps some of the "scientists" would like to confront the data?

Sorry, with creationists dishonesty is the rule. With scientists, as with all other normal, professional people, it's the exception.

You don't understand the data. It's been confronted over and over.

[semlogo]

Good point. Only the dishonest believers in God are creationists.

Right, ALL creationists are dishonest. And a generalization like that isn't a fallacy, right?

Let me clarify - every creationist whose work I've ever read or who I've ever interacted with has been dishonest or ignorant or both.

I'm open to discovering a creationist who is neither. No luck so far.

[Zakuska]

Sorry, with creationists dishonesty is the rule. With scientists, as with all other normal, professional people, it's the exception.

You don't understand the data. It's been confronted over and over.

Ah so its me who doesn't understand the data... gotcha.

I guess He's just some Yochel...

Peer-reviewed publications "The fraud allegation against some climatic research of Wei-Chyung Wang", Energy & Environment, 18: 985

[semlogo]

Ah so its me who doesn't understand the data... gotcha.

That's the spirit!

[Zakuska]

Lets take a case study...

Comparing tree rings from Greece to the Anatoli master index:

7. Case: Assiros, Greece

The Anatolian investigators have claimed that wood from Greece can be matched

against wood from Anatolia. In particular, they have claimed that much ancient Greek

wood can be matched against the master dendrochronology from Gordion. This section

considers one example of that claim, the only example to have been reported with any

details: wood from Assiros (40.8