Dendrochronology The MAD Carbon-14 Consensus

Posted on August 29, 2014by malagabay

In 1982 Dendrochronology and Radiocarbon Dating reached a Carbon-14 calibration

consensus based upon a Bristlecone Pine chronology.

Introduction
It is now quite generally accepted that conventional radiocarbon dates
need to be calibrated because of temporal variations in the radiocarbon
content of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
The discovery of this phenomenon was made largely by the pioneering work of de
Vries (1958; 1959) and Willis, Tauber, and Munnich (1960), and subsequently has been
carried on by more than a dozen radiocarbon laboratories worldwide (for a review see
Damon, Lerman, and Long, 1978).
The assessment of these variations relies on the measurement of C activity in samples
of known age.
Dendrochronologically dated wood has proved to be an ideal material for such
measurements, and currently all radiocarbon calibrations are based on measurements
of 14C activity in wood.
The longest chronology extant is that of the bristlecone pine, resulting
from the efforts of Schulman (1956) and Ferguson (1969; 1970; 1972).
It reaches continuously to 8681 years ago, and to 8580 years ago with sufficient
material to allow radiocarbon dating. This work includes measurements on wood as
old as 8000 years.

Calibration of radiocarbon dates J. Klein et al. Radiocarbon, 24, 1982

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/748/753
?origin=publication_detail
The consensus was very important for both parties.
Radiocarbon Dating wanted to understand more fully the nature and causes of the
variability of radiocarbon dates whilst Dendrochronology needed to ensure their
Bristlecone Pine chronology [aka narrative] based upon a new dendrochronological
species, in a new area, and (increasingly) in a new time period was not derailed by
Radiocarbon Dating.
As one of the principal objectives of this analysis has been to understand more fully
the nature and causes of the variability of radiocarbon dates, the data were
examined carefully for signs of non-random errors.
Calibration of radiocarbon dates J. Klein et al. Radiocarbon, 24, 1982
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/748/753
?origin=publication_detail
This study brought out what was very early realized: that in working with a new
dendrochronological species, in a new area, and (increasingly) in a new
time period, we would be much more secure in chronology building to work with
material of a proven, but safe quality.
Much of the data collected in the early stage of investigation was of an extremely
difficult quality, with a very low average ring width (many specimens had more than
100 rings per radial inch), a high mean sensitivity, and many locally absent and
missing rings.
A 7104 Year Annual Tree Ring Chronology for Bristlecone Pine, Pinus Aristata, from
the White Mountains, California C. W. Ferguson Tree-Ring Bulletin, Volume 29
(1969)
https://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/259957/1/trb-29-0304-003-029.pdf

The discussions between the two disciplines must have had a few interesting moments
because Radiocarbon Dating [much to their surprise] conceded that there is significant
evidence of systematic differences between the laboratories.
Much to our surprise and despite previous findings to the contrary (Damon,
Lerman, and Long, 1978; Clark, 1975; Damon, 1970),there is significant evidence
of systematic differences between the laboratories represented.

Calibration of radiocarbon dates J. Klein et al. Radiocarbon, 24, 1982

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/748/753
?origin=publication_detail
Little else is revealed regarding the discussions that led to the calibration
consensus based upon a composite workshop data set.

The composite workshop data set is plotted against the 6th order polynominal
regressed on the logarithmically scaled data.
Calendric age minus conventional radiocarbon age is the ordinate; the calendric age is
the abscissa.
Positive values represent radiocarbon ages that are too young (too recent) and,
consequently, atmospheric concentrations were greater than that of the standard
atmosphere of 1890
Calibration of radiocarbon dates J. Klein et al. Radiocarbon, 24, 1982
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/download/748/753
?origin=publication_detail

However, an analysis of the workshop data set reveals that Radiocarbon Dating of the
Bristlecone Pine chronology is far from a perfect fit and that the rounded consensus
calibration curve is derived from a very jagged, saw tooth dataset.

Furthermore, the beginning of the chronology [in modern times] represents

a majortheoretical problem for Radiocarbon Dating because the living outer layers of
the Bristlecone Pines appear to be hugely deficient in Carbon-14 [i.e. carbon-14 dating
indicates these outer layers are a lot older than suggested by the tree-ring chronology].
This presents another major problem for Radiocarbon Dating because they then have
to explain how the older heartwood [which is functionally dead see above] acquired
additional Carbon-14 so that Radiocarbon Dating could conclude it is younger than the
outermost layers.
The Radiocarbon Dating of the first 250 years of the tree-ring chronology [inexplicably]
ranges over 500 years [from over three hundred years too old to over 200 years too
young].

Overall, the Radiocarbon Dating of the first 500 years of the chronology generates a
gianthorseshoe pattern which is totally inexplicable according to Radiocarbon Dating
theory.
Furthermore, the only way the numerous [vertical] straight line dating sequences [red
lines in the above diagram] can be generated is by Radiocarbon Dating [inconsistently]
assigning different years to the same tree-ring year from the chronology samples.

These problems would appear to be fatal for Radiocarbon Dating and it is extremely
remarkable that a consensus was reached by Dendrochronology.
However, in the process of dating the Bristlecone Pine tree-ring
chronology Radiocarbon Dating acquired a detailed knowledge of the tree-ring
chronology that was equally fatal for Dendrochronology.

The present master chronology consists of two existent chronology units and 17
individual specimens.

The first chronology unit is made up of paired cores from nine trees in
Methuselah Walk. These specimens comprise the second half (those with the most
missing rings, and generally higher mean sensitivity and lower serial correlation) of
the data in Table 1 (Ferguson 1968, Table 1).
The second unit is the Schulman Master, composed of 14 trees, which extends
from A.D. 800 to 1954. It incorporates specimens from four sites in the White
Mountains
A 7104 Year Annual Tree Ring Chronology for Bristlecone Pine, Pinus Aristata, from
the White Mountains, California C. W. Ferguson Tree-Ring Bulletin, Volume 29
(1969)
https://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/259957/1/trb-29-0304-003-029.pdf

As the Radiocarbon Dating progressed through the 40 individual Bristlecone Pine

samples it would have become apparent that the apexes of the jagged, saw
tooth workshop data set were primarily caused by the transition from one sample to
the next [red lines below].
In other words, the whole construction of the tree-ring chronology was extremely
suspect because the samples did not blend in smoothly with their neighbouring samples.

Furthermore, Radiocarbon Dating could detect any tree-ring samples that had been
reversed in the chronology based upon the Carbon-14 dates or by simple pattern
matching in the chronology.

However, it is also possible that the consensus was achieved by deliberately reversing
samples because the other half of the jagged, saw tooth was represented by a tree-ring
sample where the carbon-14 decayed at three times the normal rate or [more likely]
there was a catastrophic event that temporarily inflated the level of atmospheric carbon14.

Its also possible to envisage a situation where Dendrochronology and Radiocarbon

Dating reached a consensus to protect Uniformitarianism under terms of Mutually
Assured Destruction.
Share this:

Twitter

Facebook

Related

A Carbon-14 Chronology
In "Catastrophism"

Dendrochronology: Disastrous Data

In "Catastrophism"

Irish Guide to the First Millennium

In "Earth"
Gallery | This entry was posted in Catastrophism, Dendrochronology, Radiocarbon Dating, Uniformitarianism.
Bookmark the permalink.
Dendrochronology: Death and Double Counting
The Science of Propaganda

2 Responses to Dendrochronology The MAD Carbon14 Consensus

1.
2.

Pingback: Dendrochronology: Disastrous Data | MalagaBay

Pingback: A Carbon-14 Chronology | MalagaBay