Carbon Dating

[JC1]

If a sticky is required for C-14 i would gladly compile one.

 

However concerning only the points you raised Jhn B.C-14 is a reliable( not foolproof) dating technique on its own.When used in conjunction with other dating techniques we can be extremely confident(as a geologist i feel qualified in making that statement).

 

You are quite correct in your questioning the rate of 14C creation.This is a problem(gasps from audience)we are fully aware of' date=' which is why we dont solely rely on C-14 dating.For instance the atmospheric fraction of 14C/Ctotal [b']cannot have always been constant,as far as im aware no real scientist has stated it has always been constant. Though the rate of decay has , hence the techniques relevance and reliability up to a max of around 60,000yr.[/b]

 

Just one more question to clear out my doubt. Are the dating methods based on constant rate? If they are, I find the contradiction to the explanation of the earth and the moon issue above that the rate is not constant and we cannot do a linear extrapolation. I think I almost understand what you've explained. very close.

 

Thank you guys

[Mokele]

Just one more question to clear out my doubt. Are the dating methods based on constant rate?

 

Well, first, we have an a-priori reason to expect constancy (that decay is governed by somewhat simple rules of atomic physics), which we don't have in any of the instances you raised before.

 

But, more importantly, we can check by checking two against each other. If we get the predicted ages for one item with two methods, then take the age of a different sample with both methods, and all measures agree, we can be reasonably sure that both rates are constant and linear, since even if they agreed on the first, if one or both were non-linear, they would not agree on the second unless they were *identically* non-linear. The more different tests we check this way, the more likely it becomes that our a-priori prediction from physics of constant decay rate is right.

 

Can we 100% know? Of course not, science is always inductive. But we *can* know to a very high degree of statistical certainty.

 

Mokele

[JC1]

Well' date=' first, we have an a-priori reason to expect constancy (that decay is governed by somewhat simple rules of atomic physics), which we don't have in any of the instances you raised before.

 

But, more importantly, we can check by checking two against each other. If we get the predicted ages for one item with two methods, then take the age of a different sample with both methods, and all measures agree, we can be reasonably sure that both rates are constant and linear, since even if they agreed on the first, if one or both were non-linear, they would not agree on the second unless they were *identically* non-linear. The more different tests we check this way, the more likely it becomes that our a-priori prediction from physics of constant decay rate is right.

 

[b']Can we 100% know? Of course not, science is always inductive. But we *can* know to a very high degree of statistical certainty.[/b]

Mokele

 

This is where creationists usually get it twisted and telling everybody that it takes faith for evolutionists to believe in macroevolution.

 

However, I got it. Thanks for sharing.

[ParanoiA]

Necromancer alert. Well, aren't we supposed to search before we open new threads?

 

Why would you need a tree with a billion rings? C-14 dating doesn't go back that far. There is dendochronology evidence dating back more than 10,000 years. And varves. And ice cores. And coral rings. And speleotherms. C-A-L-I-B-R-A-T-I-O-N. C-O-R-R-O-B-O-R-A-T-I-O-N. Any of this sinking in? If the decay rate changed, then you wouldn't get all of the methods to agree at all.

 

Can you give an example of a calibration scenario that I might understand? I understand the concept, but I always like an example to fall back on. In this case, I'm not understanding exactly how you'd use say, dendochronology...I mean, if I understand correctly, things have to be dead in order to lose equilibrium and thus a C-14 date, and tree rings wouldn't keep forming either, so how do you know when the tree rings were formed without C-14 dating also?

 

In case it isn't clear, I'm not questioning the logic from skepticism, I'm questioning the logic from ignorance.

 

This kind of stuff has been coming up because I've become the official defender of science here at work - which is scary because I'm not a scientist of any stretch, nor do I really know much of any detail on anything. There is a lot of scientific denialism here, particularly with the laughable "climategate", mostly based on incomplete knowledge and an entirely perverted view of the method. Nothing you all haven't fielded for years here.

 

Anyway, carbon dating is the latest topic. Examples help to anchor concepts, and I'd like to be able to provide at least a passing example of how one uses dendochronology to calibrate carbon dating.

 

Thanks, anyone.

[iNow]

This kind of stuff has been coming up because I've become the official defender of science here at work <...> There is a lot of scientific denialism here, particularly with the laughable "climategate", mostly based on incomplete knowledge and an entirely perverted view of the method.

 

Boy, do I ever feel your pain. I'm in the same boat. I'm disheartened, and have lost quite a fair amount of respect for people with whom I've worked for years... just during the last few weeks. I've actually had to get up and walk away from my desk several times because I could no longer contain myself with the ignorant arguments (being made in bad faith, mind you) coming from my closest friends sitting right across from me.

 

I'm sorry I am not capable of adequately addressing the question you've posed myself... just wanted to commiserate for a moment with an old friend.

[swansont]

Necromancer alert. Well, aren't we supposed to search before we open new threads?

 

Necromancy is only (officially) frowned upon when the response adds nothing to the discussion.

 

Can you give an example of a calibration scenario that I might understand? I understand the concept, but I always like an example to fall back on. In this case, I'm not understanding exactly how you'd use say, dendochronology...I mean, if I understand correctly, things have to be dead in order to lose equilibrium and thus a C-14 date, and tree rings wouldn't keep forming either, so how do you know when the tree rings were formed without C-14 dating also?

 

In case it isn't clear, I'm not questioning the logic from skepticism, I'm questioning the logic from ignorance.

 

This kind of stuff has been coming up because I've become the official defender of science here at work - which is scary because I'm not a scientist of any stretch, nor do I really know much of any detail on anything. There is a lot of scientific denialism here, particularly with the laughable "climategate", mostly based on incomplete knowledge and an entirely perverted view of the method. Nothing you all haven't fielded for years here.

 

Anyway, carbon dating is the latest topic. Examples help to anchor concepts, and I'd like to be able to provide at least a passing example of how one uses dendochronology to calibrate carbon dating.

 

Thanks, anyone.

 

 

Tree rings overlap from present back many thousands of years, through different samples. You might have a tree that is several hundred years old and it will have a pattern of growth rings that vary in a recognizable pattern. You can find the same pattern in an older tree that had died some time in the past, and is older. This then matches up with an even older sample, etc. etc.

 

http://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html#tree_rings

http://www.radiocarbon.eu/tree-ring-calibration.htm

[Mr Skeptic]

I dunno. I'd have to be pretty lonely before I'd consider dating carbon.

 

Anyhow, suppose we assume a constant decay rate but variable generation of C-14, and variable atmospheric concentrations of old carbon (say due to volcanic action). Even if we calibrate the C-14 dating via other methods, might we not end up with certain situations where two different ages would give the same C-14 reading? Are individual growth rings dated?

 

I've actually had to get up and walk away from my desk several times because I could no longer contain myself with the ignorant arguments (being made in bad faith, mind you) coming from my closest friends sitting right across from me.

 

How can you be sure that they are made in bad faith? Many people are skeptical of things they do not understand, and very few people can understand the climate. If you end up calling them liars when they are not, what will they then think of you?

[iNow]

How can you be sure that they are made in bad faith? Many people are skeptical of things they do not understand, and very few people can understand the climate. If you end up calling them liars when they are not, what will they then think of you?

 

Let me give you an example of an actual conversation.

 

 

HIM: Temperatures have not been increasing during the last several decades. That's all a big lie.

 

ME: Well, they have been increasing, so if you reject something even as simple as that, I'm not sure we can have a productive conversation about this.

 

HIM: Oh yeah, well how do you know they've been increasing? You're just taking the word of others who want you to think temperatures are increasing.

 

ME: I know because we have this technology called a thermometer which reads the same thing no matter who is looking at it.

 

HIM: Did you actually read the thermometer, or are you taking the word of someone else who did?

 

ME: I'm taking the word of the thermometers which feed their data directly into databases, and I'm looking at the graphs which are formed based on that raw data.

 

HIM: Well, as the hacked emails demonstrate, we can't trust those databases. How do you know they didn't bias their data which went into them?

 

ME: Because the results are consistent across different databases programmed by different people with different ideas, politics, and agendas... and despite all of their differences, the data is consistent.

 

HIM: But you don't know that it hasn't been tampered with, and neither do I, so my claim that temperatures have not been increasing is just as accurate as your claim that they have been.

 

ME: No, I have evidence from thermometers supporting my position.

 

HIM: But you said yourself you did not personally read the thermometers, so you're just accepting the propaganda they've been feeding you. You don't know that it's been warming, and you can't prove it.

 

ME: Okay. We're done here. I'm going to lunch.

 

I kid you not, that's almost word for word.

 

 

These are people whom I have to trust and respect on work-related projects, mind you. How can I reasonably take instruction from someone who thinks that way, or trust them to make quality decisions based on the data available? In short, I cannot. They've lost my respect, and I'm like a lone wolf in the office right now... the only one who doesn't reject or deny basic science or empiricism. It's quite disheartening and sad, really.

[Mr Skeptic]

It seems to me like he honestly believes there is a conspiracy to support global warming. Thus, he cannot accept the data that "they" give. To convince him, the first step is to convince him there is no conspiracy (alternately, prove global warming from data that he himself can verify, or trusts). What I would suggest you do, is make the best use possible of the hacked emails. Ask him if from the hacked emails he can definitely prove there is a conspiracy, and whether he would be willing to accept that there is no conspiracy if he cannot (since the hacked emails ought to reveal a conspiracy if there is one). This will also give you a good chance to demonstrate to him how the people he is listening to are twisting the truth, and suggest that maybe the conspiracy is the opposite of what he thought it was.

[iNow]

It seems to me like he honestly believes there is a conspiracy to support global warming. Thus, he cannot accept the data that "they" give. To convince him, the first step is to convince him there is no conspiracy (alternately, prove global warming from data that he himself can verify, or trusts). What I would suggest you do, is make the best use possible of the hacked emails. Ask him if from the hacked emails he can definitely prove there is a conspiracy, and whether he would be willing to accept that there is no conspiracy if he cannot (since the hacked emails ought to reveal a conspiracy if there is one). This will also give you a good chance to demonstrate to him how the people he is listening to are twisting the truth, and suggest that maybe the conspiracy is the opposite of what he thought it was.

I actually couldn't agree with you more here, Mr.Skeptic. Your method is solid, and is focused on the root of the issue, not the symptoms. The difficulty, however, is in the likelihood of success. After all... I wasn't even able to get him to agree that thermometer readings were objective. I'm not optimistic that he'd agree there is no conspiracy no matter how solid of a case I make. He's tied to the narrative, not to the truth.

 

I've encountered the same problems in discussing evolution with him. It's just a waste of time. You need to know, however, that I'm not sitting here calling him a moron or a ridiculous asshat. While I feel more comfortable severing relationships online, I work with these guys, and have to see them each and everyday... So I need to be much more attentive to nurturing the relationship, even if it makes me sick to my stomach sometimes.

 

I'll keep fighting the good fight, but sooner or later I'm just going to give up and write them off, because... to be perfectly honest... and you probably know this about me already... I'm really not that patient of a person.

 

Cheers.

[swansont]

Unfortunately, an appeal to conspiracy is just another category or facet of crackpottery. Once you accept conspiracy as a premise, any and all issues that contradict you can be explained away.

[Mr Skeptic]

But conspiracies do exist, and assuming they don't is just dumb. The problem is not when you suspect or are convinced of a conspiracy, it is when you do that absent any evidence or even against all evidence. Even when you accept a conspiracy, you can only reject the facts that "they" tell you. You cannot reject facts from before the conspiracy, nor facts you can personally verify or are from a trusted source.

 

It may be helpful to call such people conspiracy theorists rather than global warming deniers. Also following very specific facts as closely as possible, ideally to personal verification, rather than trying to switch to a different set of facts that they might believe (they won't).

[swansont]

But conspiracies do exist, and assuming they don't is just dumb. The problem is not when you suspect or are convinced of a conspiracy, it is when you do that absent any evidence or even against all evidence. Even when you accept a conspiracy, you can only reject the facts that "they" tell you. You cannot reject facts from before the conspiracy, nor facts you can personally verify or are from a trusted source.

 

It may be helpful to call such people conspiracy theorists rather than global warming deniers. Also following very specific facts as closely as possible, ideally to personal verification, rather than trying to switch to a different set of facts that they might believe (they won't).

 

But "conspiracy" must be a conclusion, not the premise. Starting from that premise, all scientific rigor is lost, since it is impossible to conclusively disprove. A lack of evidence for the conspiracy is merely evidence showing you how well-crafted the conspiracy is.

[Mr Skeptic]

But that's hardly the only thing that is unscientific when you start with it as a premise. Starting with nearly anything as a premise throws out scientific rigor. I suppose it's fair to start with the scientific method as a premise though.

[iNow]

Can you give an example of a calibration scenario that I might understand? I understand the concept, but I always like an example to fall back on. In this case, I'm not understanding exactly how you'd use say, dendochronology...I mean, if I understand correctly, things have to be dead in order to lose equilibrium and thus a C-14 date, and tree rings wouldn't keep forming either, so how do you know when the tree rings were formed without C-14 dating also?

<...>

Examples help to anchor concepts, and I'd like to be able to provide at least a passing example of how one uses dendochronology to calibrate carbon dating.

 

In addition to the links shared already by swansont, I thought these might be of assistance:

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html#proof27

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html

[ParanoiA]

Hey thanks for the response fellas. I've checked the links and there's some good stuff there for sure.

 

What I meant was more like a specific example of how one would calibrate...for instance I have this old piece of pottery I think was crafted 10,000 years ago. I carbon date it to about that time. Now, how do I calibrate with tree rings? Do I carbon date the tree ring sample itself - while knowing the tree ring sample is from 5,000 years ago, and then compare the two? Or what?

 

I'm not understanding the actual process of calibrating. What is being compared?

 

I think Swansont was answering that, here:

 

Tree rings overlap from present back many thousands of years, through different samples. You might have a tree that is several hundred years old and it will have a pattern of growth rings that vary in a recognizable pattern. You can find the same pattern in an older tree that had died some time in the past, and is older. This then matches up with an even older sample, etc. etc.

 

So, if I understand correctly, the older tree sample could be matched up with the living tree sample due to the signature patter of growth rings and simply doing the math given the difference in total rings on the living tree. So would you then carbon date the older sample to see if it matches the date obtained by comparing tree rings? That sounds like calibration to me. And that's an example I could easily recite if I needed to. Is that sound?

 

These are people whom I have to trust and respect on work-related projects, mind you. How can I reasonably take instruction from someone who thinks that way, or trust them to make quality decisions based on the data available? In short, I cannot. They've lost my respect, and I'm like a lone wolf in the office right now... the only one who doesn't reject or deny basic science or empiricism. It's quite disheartening and sad, really.

 

Same here. The thing I keep running into, and it's entirely fascinating actually if not so aggrivating, is that they base their "belief" in GW on perceived political consequences, not on evidence or reality.

 

I always ask them, if the democrats proposed a 90% tax rate during the day time, are you going to say the sun never rises? Or are you going to take issue with the tax rate? So why deny GW, science, based on what "socialists" are going to do, politics? As usual, I'm stuck in an odd position - on one hand, arguing with socialistic efforts to resolve global warming and on the other hand, arguing with skeptics for denying science based on political response.

 

It's so obvious to me. Why is it so hard to separate the two? Politics, media and science have been purposely fused together to create this. I haven't run into a skeptic yet that didn't use all three to deny the one - science.

Edited December 9, 2009 by ParanoiA

[swansont]

So, if I understand correctly, the older tree sample could be matched up with the living tree sample due to the signature patter of growth rings and simply doing the math given the difference in total rings on the living tree. So would you then carbon date the older sample to see if it matches the date obtained by comparing tree rings? That sounds like calibration to me. And that's an example I could easily recite if I needed to. Is that sound?

 

To the best of my knowledge, that's what they do. And you can do similar things with annual sediment layers in lakes and similar other phenomena, and compare with samples found that can also be carbon-dated.

 

You wouldn't be able to date pottery, though, because carbon dating is limited to things that were alive, and also took in terrestrial air (i.e. no animals like fish or crustaceans). So you'd have to date e.g. the hemp mat that served as a holder for the pottery.

[Moontanman]

He said the distance between the earth and the moon was reducing, a blatant untruth. The moon formed very close to the earth from a collision with a mars sized planet, the moon has been moving steadily away since then, the rate of movement has slowed down as the moon gets further away but the distance is not reducing by any interpretation of the data. The earths spin has been reduced drastically since then, fossilized imprints of tidal movements show this. I am quite sure he doesn't care to see his "god" shown to be wrong anyway.