So how reliable are the C14 calibration methods?

[Zakuska]

I would say that, in brief, while what you said is true, the burden of proof still lies with the creationists on the ineffectiveness of C14 dating, if only because so many in the scientific community apparently have wrong ideas about it. If science is wrong on this point (which they could be), how are they wrong? How do they need to correct the model to compensate for previous errors? How would compensating for these previous errors change the conclusions that have been drawn to this point from C14 dating? These are the questions I'm interested in at this point.

Lets get some papers published and show the community how they are wrong!

So what happens when an anonymously dated Allasurus bone (14,000,000 years ago according to the Scientists) carbon dates to 9890 +- 60 and 16,120 +-220 years ago?

[semlogo]

So what happens when an anonymously dated Allasurus bone (14,000,000 years ago according to the Scientists) carbon dates to 9890 +- 60 and 16,120 +-220 years ago?

[Zakuska]

Or maybe you'd like the Modern Snails who died yesterday dating to 27000 years old?

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/224/4644/58.full.pdf

[Tarski]

If Carbon 14 dating is unreliable no, it doesn't mean that the Earth was really created in seven days a mere 6,000 years ago.

But some on the board seem to act as if this is so, and its the believers in Carbon 14 dating, not any young earth creationists.

April fools day is long gone. Is it opposite day? What the heck are you talking about?

You tell me; why is Zak posting this stuff on a religious message board?

[Zakuska]

Its intresting to read the notes of the Scientists creating the Calibration curves themselves. Quite telling actually...

Comparisons of Fairbanks Radiocarbon Calibration data and curve and IntCal04 data and curveThe tree ring atmospheric radiocarbon calibration data set spanning 0 to 12,410 years BP is superior to all other atmospheric radiocarbon calibration data due to the number and quality of the radiocarbon measurements and the accuracy and precision of the tree dendrochronology (Stuiver et al., 1998; Reimer et al., 2004). The Fairbanks curve (Fairbanks et al., 2005; 2007) and IntCal04 curve (Reimer et al., 2004) use the same tree ring data set from 0 to 12,410 cal yr B.P. and the two different radiocarbon calibration programs yield nearly identical results over this interval (See CalPal web site for a comparison). There are presently two choices for calibration curves beyond 12,410 years BP: IntCal04 (Hughen et al., 2004) to 26,000 years or our calibration curve (Fairbanks et al., 2005) from 0 to 55,000 years BP. In our judgment the choice is clear but let us review the differences. The IntCal04 includes predominantly laminated sediments from the Cariaco Basin from 11,900 to 14,000 years BP along with coral data from numerous investigators of varying sample quality based on the reported presence of calcite in samples analyzed by some of the contributors. In contrast, our calibration program (Fairbanks et al., 2005; 2007) uses the 1382-ring floating tree ring data set from Kromer et al., (2004) for the time interval between 12,600 and 14,000 yrs BP anchored by our coral data set. Over this time interval, the Caricao data set used by IntCal04 differs by more than 200 years from the tree ring and our coral calibration data. The photo images of the Cariaco sediment layering (Hughen et al., 2004) shows very weak to indistinct layers in the 13,250 to 14,000 year interval where the offset of Cariaco data with the tree ring and coral data sets is most apparent. In a recent study (*Bondevik et al., 2006), Reimer, the lead author of the IntCal04 paper) and her colleagues retract the Cariaco calibration data in IntCal04 data set and IntCal04 calibration curve and inserted the floating tree ring data set in its place. In their 2006 paper they state that:

The part of the new calibration curves that relies on tree-ring evidence (IntCal04) dates back to 12,410 calendar (cal) yr B.P. Beyond that and back to 14,700 cal yr B.P., IntCal04 is mainly constructed from 14C dates of foraminiferas from Venezuela.s Cariaco basin that are corrected for a constant reservoir age of 405 years. However, it has been proposed that the latter increased up to 650 years during the Bolling/Allerod. We therefore replaced that part of IntCal04 with a new, floating tree-ring curve composed of 1382 rings between 10,650 and 12,000 14C yr B.P. . Thus our tree-ring record from IntCal04, combined with the new, floating tree-ring curve, represents a true terrestrial curve that extends across most of the studied interval.

All previous attempts to use layered sediments for radiocarbon calibration purposes have not stood the test of time and the Cariaco basin calibration data used in IntCal04 are apparently no exception (Bondevik et al., 2006).

From 14,000 to 26,000 years BP, 80% of the data in the IntCal04 were provided by our laboratory and we have subsequently doubled the amount of data in the 14,000 to 26,000 year BP time interval (Cao et al., 2006; Fairbanks et al., 2005; 2006).

IntCal04 ends at 26,000 cal yr B.P. representing only 50% of the radiocarbon age dating range. Our calibration extends to the limits of radiocarbon age dating to 50,000 cal yrs B.P. using the same coral sample and data quality control measures and dating techniques as applied to our younger samples and those we provided to IntCal04.

Another difference between the selections of IntCal04 versus our calibration program is philosophical. Seven years elapsed between publication of IntCal98 and IntCal04 although the majority of new data between 14,000 and 26,000 are from our laboratory. It is unclear when the next internationally ratified calibration curve will be approved but it is presumably many years away. Meanwhile, Reimer and colleagues (Bondevik et al., 2006) have already retracted a segment of the Cariaco layered sediment data set used in IntCal04 but the .official. IntCal04 file has not been revised. On the other hand, we are increasing the number of new calibration data pairs by 50% per year over the next 3 years. We appreciate the value of a stable internationally-ratified radiocarbon calibration curve, however researchers want the best available calibration curve in order to make the most accurate and precise conversion of radiocarbon years to calendar years. Considering the dramatic increase in ocean, climate, and archeological research spanning the deglacial, glacial and Marine Isotope Stage 3, there is a high and growing demand for radiocarbon calibration. We recommend that researchers and editors always list their raw radiocarbon ages and laboratory sample identification code and simply identify the calibration version used for their calibrated ages. This permits anyone to revise calibrated ages as our calibration curve is periodically updated over the next three years. In order to ensure that there is not a proliferation of calibration curves using outdated versions of our calibration data, we only offer an on line version. We will update our calibration curve every year and publish the data within 12 months of the update. To better serve the archeological community, we will also release the calibration data and access to our curve to CalPal at the same time we update our curve. The curve will be updated every year on Jan 1 and versions are identified as Fairbanks followed by the month and year such as Fairbanks0107 for the upcoming version. There are already enough calibration data such that our curve is stable and the primary improvements with future versions will be in the reduction in computed calendar year uncertainties. We continue to measure the ²³¹Pa/²³⁵U ages of the samples that have been exposed to vados fresh water in order to provide quality assurance. Our goal is to have redundant ²³¹Pa/²³⁵U dates on all calibrations ages between 30,000 and 55,000 years BP within one year of publishing new ²³⁰Th/²³⁴U/²³⁸U dates.

http://www.radiocarb...radiocarbon.htm

I wonder how much better the IntCal09 than the IntCal04?

So it seems the Scientists have jetisoned the Sediment data as unrelyable and come up with a new substitue for it. But see my next post.... there new system has issues as well!

[Zakuska]

There seems to be problems with this new method they are proposing as well...

Palaeoclimate: Tree rings floating on ice cores

Paula J. Reimer1 & Konrad A. Hughen2

bThe 14CHRONO Centre for Climate, the Environment & Chronology, School of Geography, Archaeology and Palaeoecology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN, UK.

Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution, Department of Marine Chemistry & Geochemistry, Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543 USA.

e-mail: p.j.reimer@qub.ac.uk

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Abstract

Because of difficulties in creating a radiocarbon calibration that covers the end of the last glaciation, defining the timing and duration of the Younger Dryas cold event has been a challenge. Linking related cosmogenic isotopes in tree rings and ice cores may provide new insights into abrupt climate changes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Radiocarbon measurements on tree rings of known age are considered the gold standard for converting terrestrial radiocarbon ages to calendar years. This is necessary for estimating absolute dates because atmospheric radiocarbon content has varied over time, and therefore the initial radiocarbon content of a sample can not be known precisely.

<snip>

Incorporating the newly positioned floating tree-ring timescale1 into the radiocarbon calibration curve is not necessarily as helpful as it may initially ...

http://www.nature.co...ll/ngeo167.html

Man... Its cut off!

See even the scientists know we need to know the inital content of carbon in a sample and how inprecise the current system is. Thats the whole driving force behind all this calibration stuff, because the scientists keep dating objects of Known age and the numbers just dont match up.

[Zakuska]

See they are still testing him out...

ABSTRACTS

This paper describes the application of some further statistical methods for the calibration of floating treering chronologies to data pertaining to the Neolithic settlement at Auvernier. The more general statistical approach utilizes the information contained in the successive time-derivatives as well as the absolute values of the bristlecone pine calibration curve, by fitting polynomial or piecewise polynomial curves, thereby producing better estimates, in general, of the absolute dates of the floating chronologies. Presentation of results in terms of joint confidence regions enables the relevant stratigraphic evidence to be included in the analysis by simple graphical means. In addition, the paper offers a new approach, using only floating tree-ring chronologies, to the testing of Libby's principle of simultaneity.

http://onlinelibrary...0096.x/abstract

[Zakuska]

So Tarski and the other Scientists on the Board...

All previous attempts to use layered sediments for radiocarbon calibration purposes have not stood the test of time and the Cariaco basin calibration data used in IntCal04 are apparently no exception (Bondevik et al., 2006).

...

Meanwhile, Reimer and colleagues (Bondevik et al., 2006) have already retracted a segment of the Cariaco layered sediment data set used in IntCal04 but the .official. IntCal04 file has not been revised.

If the tree ring data and the sediment data are helping us Soooooo much with calibrating our C14 dates... why in the World would the top two labs creating the calibration curves themselves say such a thing and jetison all the data?

[Zakuska]

This doesn't look too promising for Scottish tree ring data.

RADIOCARBON MEASUREMENTS ON A FLOATING TREE-RING CHRONOLOGY FROM NORTH-EAST SCOTLAND

Radiocarbon measurements have been performed on a 250 year

[FutureTwitBlog]

This doesn't look too promising for Scottish tree ring data.

http://onlinelibrary...0209.x/abstract

Um, no offense, but the article is from 1978. I think that the field may have advanced since then.

[Zakuska]

Heres a very intresting paper on calibration of C14 issues...

Tree rings and ice cores reveal 14C calibration uncertainties during the Younger Dryas

The Late Glacial time interval, from approximately 14,500 to

11,600 cal years BP, is of great interest in palaeoclimate research

because of the strong climate variability found in various archives,

for example in ice cores1,2, lacustrine sediments3, speleothems4,

marine sediments5,6 and tree rings7,8. Accurate and independent

dating of the various records is a prerequisite to understand the

causes and effects of this climate variability, and there is still a

relatively large disagreement between the different determinations

of the length of the Younger Dryas (YD) cold period. From detailed

14C dating of terrestrial macrofossils in European Late Glacial lake

sequences it can be concluded that the onset of YD is dated to

10,800

[FutureTwitBlog]

See they are still testing him out...

http://onlinelibrary...0096.x/abstract

Again, I don't think that a paper from 1973 qualifies in anyone's book as "still" testing out a theory. The field has likely moved on in the last 40 or so years.

[FutureTwitBlog]

Heres a very intresting paper on calibration of C14 issues...

http://www.wsl.ch/st...%20NGEO2008.pdf

The dates on this are pretty intresting because many of the supposed C14 extinction dates for large land animals occur during this time and its a great big "?"

This coincides with the Carbon "burp" equal in magnitude to the Hydrogen bomb blasts of the 50's.

http://www.scienceda...00527141959.htm

I think that this result, while interesting, probably doesn't throw into question the C14 dating method. My understanding is that the ratio of C14 found determines the age, not the absolute amount of C14 existing in the environment at the time. I could be wrong though.

[Zakuska]

I think that this result, while interesting, probably doesn't throw into question the C14 dating method. My understanding is that the ratio of C14 found determines the age, not the absolute amount of C14 existing in the environment at the time. I could be wrong though.

According to everything Ive read every Carbon date since the 1950s is inacurate because of the bomb blasts and so thats why when we do carbon dating on living animals we get weird result. Yet we have a similair bomb blast (carbon burp) occuring right at this same time at the end of the ice age. So if this is true... what makes ANY of those dates valid when we cant even validate anything since the bomb?

Science can't have this both ways.

[FutureTwitBlog]

According to everything Ive read every Carbon date since the 1950s is inacurate because of the bomb blasts and so thats why when we do carbon dating on living animals we get weird result. Yet we have a similair bomb blast (carbon burp) occuring right at this same time at the end of the ice age. So if this is true... what makes ANY of those dates valid when we cant even validate anything since the bomb?

Science can't have this both ways.

Not being an expert in carbon dating, I can't say for certain. However, it's still my understanding that it's only the ratio of C14 to C12 that matters, not the absolute amount. Also, from what I understand, this ratio has been shown empirically to be consistent over time.

Have you found any papers later than the 1970's that claim to find major inaccuracies in the C14 dating method?

[Zakuska]

Not being an expert in carbon dating, I can't say for certain. However, it's still my understanding that it's only the ratio of C14 to C12 that matters, not the absolute amount. Also, from what I understand, this ratio has been shown empirically to be consistent over time.

Have you found any papers later than the 1970's that claim to find major inaccuracies in the C14 dating method?

I posted this earlier... it comes from 2005.

All previous attempts to use layered sediments for radiocarbon calibration purposes have not stood the test of time and the Cariaco basin calibration data used in IntCal04 are apparently no exception (Bondevik et al., 2006).

...

Meanwhile, Reimer and colleagues (Bondevik et al., 2006) have already retracted a segment of the Cariaco layered sediment data set used in IntCal04 but the .official. IntCal04 file has not been revised.

http://www.radiocarb...radiocarbon.htm

So the labs doing the calibration databases through out a whole section of sediment data because of its inacuracies.

[Tarski]

So Tarski and the other Scientists on the Board...

If the tree ring data and the sediment data are helping us Soooooo much with calibrating our C14 dates... why in the World would the top two labs creating the calibration curves themselves say such a thing and jetison all the data?

The issue was with sediment and the point is simply that it has not passed the test of time for giving the very best calibrations. Getting the best calibrations is apparently a very competitive endeavor. They threw out a segment because they could do better. These adjustments are utterly minute compared to what one would need to help out creationists.

Zak still has nothing.

Now folks, in order to see what kind of deceptive business Zak is up to this time please take a look at the website where his quote originates.

http://www.radiocarbon.ldeo.columbia.edu/research/radiocarbon.htm

You will see an example of how careful people are with radiocarbon dating and how seriously they take error analysis and calibration. This page should increase confidence not decrease it.

Indeed, take a look at the calibration curve here and look for crosses indicating tree data points and coral data points. One has to zoom in quite a bit to see anything but perfection. It looks pretty impressive to me. With this level of matching, what kind of astounding errors does Zak think he is going to get and what kind of doubt can these curve fitting adjustments even begin to throw onto the dating aspects of our basic scientific picture?

What does Zak wish us to think? That because of these calibration issues that come up when they try to achieve the very best results, we are to embrace young earth creationism or that suddenly we are free to assume drastically different extinction dates for Pleistocene fauna?

Not at all.

The relevance of any of this to religion remains mysterious.

Zak, are you going to jump from the need for increasing refinements of radiocarbon calibration to talking snakes and cureloms in one single mad leap? What is the point of all this?

Zak is posting this kind of thing at an accelerating pace giving the impression of desperation. Where does he get the time? When one looks close at Zak's sources, we see, every time, something less relevant, or less reliable and/or less dramatic than he hopes for and never is there any help for fundamentalism.

This frenetic desperation combined the basic dishonest selectiveness of his presentation of this material sure paints the picture of someone who is undergoing a sudden crisis of testimony.

Zak, pull yourself together and go talk to any of a dozen LDS posters here such as semlogo, Kathrine-the-Great, Silvernight, Brade, etc. who seem to be able to hold onto their religion without this wacky anti-science crusade.

[Zakuska]

Zak, pull yourself together and go talk to any of a dozen LDS posters here such as semlogo, Kathrine-the-Great, Silvernight, Brade, etc. who seem to be able to hold onto their religion without this wacky anti-science crusade.

Oh... I wouldn't worry about my religion. Im holding onto it just fine.

But it sure is an eye opener on your religion.

All previous attempts to use layered sediments for radiocarbon calibration purposes have not stood the test of time and the Cariaco basin calibration data used in IntCal04 are apparently no exception (Bondevik et al., 2006).

So it looks like all sedimentary data is out.

[Tarski]

Oh... I wouldn't worry about my religion. Im holding onto it just fine.

But it sure is an eye opener on your religion.

If you are talking about that thing which is most unlike a religion--science--then the eye opener has simply been how far from understanding it you are.

You are the mirror image of the guy that thinks the LDS church isn't true because some Bishop called someone to be the organist who couldn't play the organ. Ack! Look what that Bishop did! The church is proven false!

The problem is, science never made the kind of absolutist claims that religions often do. All scientific knowledge is in principle subject to revision. And this little fact provides not the least justification for any religious doctrine.

Science isn't perfect. In fact, it might often be terribly flawed in practice. But is is nevertheless, the very best we have and the very best we can ever hope for as far as a truth detecting endeaver. Furthermore, it is and always will be irrational for laypersons to reject those parts of mainstream science that they don't fancy just because they expect that science will revise itself in some way on some point in the future.

[Zakuska]

This papers conclusions are pretty telling... (It appears to have been written in 2008)

What is the potential to use Juniperus excelsa for climate reconstruction?

The calculated site chronology has to be regarded as preliminary. It certainly needs further

support by integrating more material from

[Tarski]

This papers conclusions are pretty telling... (It appears to have been written in 2008)

http://webdocs.dow.w...RACE%202008.pdf

From what Im reading there is still MUCH work that needs to be done before we can have as much confidence in these things as Tarski seems to have!

At least this Scientist is a little more realistic than Tarski. (ie. " it is still questionable " vs. "Evolution is a fact." )

Yes evolution is a fact.

Will there come a time when you show specifically how evolution is in danger or that the earth is 6000 years old or something? Will you actually do some better error analysis than these scientists and show us how it relates to religion? Show us how it should really be done (with numbers and stats and physics!)

For our entertainment, may I suggest you also comb the internet to find sentences that seem to talk of problems in measuring the shape of the earth precisely. The flat earth society needs your help.

[Zakuska]

Yes evolution is a fact.

Will there come a time when you show specifically how evolution is in danger or that the earth is 6000 years old or something? Will you actually do some better error analysis than these scientists and show us how it relates to religion? Show us how it should really be done (with numbers and stats and physics!)

For our entertainment, may I suggest you also comb the internet to find sentences that seem to talk of problems in measuring the shape of the earth precisely. The flat earth society needs your help.

Im not trying to prove that the earth is 6000 years old. The scriptures don't support that.

[FutureTwitBlog]

Im not trying to prove that the earth is 6000 years old. The scriptures don't support that.

So what are you trying to prove then?

[FutureTwitBlog]

This papers conclusions are pretty telling... (It appears to have been written in 2008)

http://webdocs.dow.w...RACE%202008.pdf

From what Im reading there is still MUCH work that needs to be done before we can have as much confidence in these things as Tarski seems to have!

At least this Scientist is a little more realistic than Tarski. (ie. " it is still questionable " vs. "Evolution is a fact." )

The paper in question was saying that tree ring dating was difficult IN THIS ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE (because of the odd nature of the local climate and the odd growth pattern of the trees in question), NOT IN ALL INSTANCES. I'm surprised that you missed that.

[Zakuska]

The paper in question was saying that tree ring dating was difficult IN THIS ONE SPECIFIC INSTANCE (because of the odd nature of the local climate and the odd growth pattern of the trees in question), NOT IN ALL INSTANCES. I'm surprised that you missed that.

Yes it was. And that is exactly the same tree SPECIES that the master tree ring data base comes from.

http://www.dendrochr...net/juniper.asp

So if erratic weather patterns effect these type of trees causing multiple rings in a single year as well as skipped rings in others and some missing rings can't even be detected. What does that say about the over all reliability of the data?