Catastrophic Dendrochronology

Catastrophic Dendrochronology

Catastrophic Dendrochronology attempts to salvage some semblance of order from the wreckage that is mainstream dendrochronology and mainstream radiocarbon dating.

Might that be the objective – to get the tree rings and C14 data to fit the preconceived orthodox chronology?

Bristlecone Pines and Time

Catastrophic Dendrochronology assumes that a “cosmic catastrophe” will appear as a low carbon-14 outlier in any chronology that has been radiocarbon dated by the mainstream.

… the general conflagration that accompanied the cosmic catastrophe must have caused contamination of the air by carbon from burning forests, and even more so by burning fossil carbon in oil and coal, besides the contamination of the air by the products of volcanic eruptions, which were simultaneous on all continents.

Such intrusion of non-radioactive carbon into the atmosphere would have disturbed the 12C/14C balance in the sense of making any organic material that grew and lived after the catastrophe appear in the carbon test as older and belonging to an earlier age.

Ages in Chaos: The Testimony of Radiocarbon Dating – Immanuel Velikovsky

Catastrophic Dendrochronology assumes that any perturbation of the atmospheric 12C/14C balance [following a “cosmic catastrophe”] will naturally dissipate within 40 or 50 years.

This assumption is based upon the observed decline in carbon-14 levels in the northern hemisphere during the second half of the 20th century.

Northern Hemisphere d14C

Catastrophic Dendrochronology assumes that atmospheric carbon-14 concentrations naturally vary by latitude as observed by the RV Andenes in 1990.

C14 Latitude Model

Catastrophic Dendrochronology recognises:
1) Each species has its own carbon-14 profile.
2) Terrestrial and aquatic environments are different.
3) Carbon-14 levels increase with altitude.

The 1955 Libby Samples

These differences [from the mainstream] imply that only the outliers associated with “cosmic catastrophe” can be realistically salvaged from the mainstream chronologies.

However, in a cruel twist of fate for the mainstream, these outliers may be fairly accurately dated by radiocarbon dating because everything [except for the catastrophes] will have been stretched and squashed by the mainstream “to fit the preconceived orthodox chronology”.

Based upon Willard Libby’s original Curve of Knowns it appears that the “preconceived orthodox chronology” is very much focussed upon ancient Egypt.

Curve of Knowns

Therefore, strangely enough, the Bristlecone Pines from the White Mountains in California should provide a tree-ring chronology that aligns fairly well with this focus upon ancient Egypt because the Lebanon Cedar [which grows at a similar latitude] “was prized by Egyptians for shipbuilding” according to Wikipedia.

Bristlecone vs Cedar

Although the White Mountains are about three degrees north of the Cedars of God this slight difference will be partially compensated [or over compensated] by the higher altitude at which the Bristlecone Pines grow.

C14 Latitude Model - Bristlecone Pines

However, based upon the work of A E Douglas, it is very likely that the shallow rooted Bristlecone Pine [which grows high and dry in the cold sub-alpine regions of the White Mountains] will experience a significant number of double tree rings [spring melt and autumn rain] with a few omitted rings when there is no winter snow.

A number of tests were made on the Prescott group.

The first was designed to determine the character of the rainfall in the years producing double rings.

The half-dozen most persistent cases were selected and in each of these the red ring was found double in the following number of cases: 4 out of 10 in 1896; 5 out of 10 in 1891; 7 out of 10 in 1881; 4 out of 10 in 1878, 1872, and 1871.

The trees of the Prescott group offer a few interesting examples of two or three false red rings in one year; they also have exceptionally many cases of omitted rings; both of these peculiarities are explained by the fact that these trees are close to the lowest elevation at which the climate permits them to live; they are therefore greatly affected by rainfall distribution and probably exaggerate its changes.

Climatic cycles and tree-growth – 1919 – A E Douglass

Pinus Ponderosa - Prescott Trees - Arizona

The saw-tooth nature of the 8,000 year Bristlecone Pine chronology from 6,050 BC to 1,950 AD [Calibration of radiocarbon dates – J. Klein et al. – Radiocarbon, 24, 1982] clearly suggests there are roughly twice as many tree-rings as there are radiocarbon years.

Therefore, there is prima facie evidence that supports the possibility that the chronology has been spliced and diced to fit a “preconceived orthodox chronology” especially as the mainstream does not explicitly acknowledge the occurrence of significant numbers of double tree-rings in Bristlecone Pine chronologies.

Bristlecone animation

The father of modern Catastrophism, Immanuel Velikovsky, made two very specific observation in Ages of Chaos regarding the mainstream Egyptian chronology:

1) “The last cataclysm that, according to the evidence cited in Worlds in Collision, took place on March 23, -687”.

2) “The difference between the conventional dates and the timetable of the revised chronology reaches here an almost grotesque figure of 800 years.”

Interestingly, the Bristlecone Pine chronology displays a very clear low carbon-14 outlier tree-ring at 938 BC [that appears to be hundreds of older than its immediate neighbours] which is a candidate “cosmic catastrophe”.

The tree-ring immediately before this outlier candidate was radiocarbon dated as being 205 years younger than its position in the tree-ring chronology.

Therefore, the candidate outlier is probably 205 years younger than its position in the tree-ring chronology.

This would place the candidate outlier at 733 BC which is only 46 years away from Immanuel Velikovsky’s “cataclysm” that occurred in 687 BC.

This is a remarkably result given the vagaries of the sampling and radiocarbon dating.

Furthermore, the subsequent radiocarbon dating of the tree-ring chronology then drifts away so that the tree-rings are eventually 800 radiocarbon years younger than there assigned position in the chronology.

Again, this is a remarkable result that supports Immanuel Velikovsky and reinforces the view that the chronology has been spliced and diced to fit a “preconceived orthodox chronology”.

8000 years from 6050 BC to AD 1950 -  Immanuel Velikovsky

Interestingly, Willard Libby’s Curve of Knowns provides broad support for the 205 year adjustment applied to the candidate catastrophe because a Redwood traditionally dated as 954 BC was radiocarbon dated to be 218 years younger at 736 BC.

Curve of Knowns - Immanuel Velikovsky

Gunnar Heinsohn currently makes two clear assertions:
1) A worldwide catastrophe occurred in the 230s AD.
2) There are 700 phantom years in the mainstream chronology between the 230s and 930s AD.

There are, within the 1,000 years of the 1st millennium, only some 300 years with building strata in any individual Scandinavian, Slavic or Arab site.

Did European Civilization Collapse Three Times within the 1st Millennium CE?
Gunnar Heinsohn

At the core we have a worldwide catastrophe, and some 700 years of phantom-time between 234 and 934 (Heinsohn prefers a somewhat less specific dating from 230s to 930s).

Toppling Rome’s Obelisks and Aqueducts – Ewald Ernst

Interestingly, the Bristlecone Pine chronology displays a very clear low carbon-14 outlier tree-ring at 188 AD [that appears to be hundreds of older than its immediate neighbours] which is a candidate “worldwide catastrophe”.

The tree-ring immediately before this outlier candidate indicates the candidate is correctly positioned in the tree-ring chronology.

This places the candidate outlier about 42 years away from Gunnar Heinsohn’s “worldwide catastrophe” that occurs in the 230s AD.

Again, this is a remarkably result given the vagaries of the sampling and radiocarbon dating.

However, it is impossible to verify Gunnar Heinsohn’s 700 phantom years in the chronology.

8000 years from 6050 BC to AD 1950 - Gunnar Heinsohn

Interestingly, Willard Libby’s Curve of Knowns provides some for support for Gunnar Heinsohn’s phantom years because a tree-ring traditionally dated as 690 AD was radiocarbon dated to be 253 years younger at 943 AD.

Curve of Knowns - Gunnar Heinsohn
Overall, Catastrophic Dendrochronology provides broad support [accurate to within plus or minus 50 years] for two worldwide catastrophes and generally reinforces the view that the tree-ring chronologies have been spliced and diced to fit a “preconceived orthodox chronology”.

Sadly, until such time that the mainstream release full detailed information it is impossible to verify their chronologies or Catastrophic Dendrochronology.

Gallery | This entry was posted in Catastrophism, Dendrochronology, Heinsohn Horizon, Radiocarbon Dating. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Catastrophic Dendrochronology

  1. Stephen Kovaka says:

    “One of the major coal beds exploited in the Newvale No. 2 Coal Mine is the Great Northern Seam, near the top of the sequence of rock units known collectively as the Newcastle Coal Measures (Figure 3) within the Sydney Basin.4

    The local geological column for the upper portion of the Newcastle Coal Measures showing where the Great Northern coal seam occurs.

    Based on the plant fossils found in them, these coal beds (including the associated mudstone in which the stump was found) have been designated Upper Permian, which uniformitarian geologists would therefore assign to a period of Earth’s history around 250 million years ago.4, 5

    Diagram to illustrate the relative position of the fossilised tree stump sitting on top of the Great Northern coal seam (not drawn to scale).

    Figure 4 shows the relative position of the fossilised tree stump when it was found, surrounded by a 150 mm (almost 6 inches) thick layer of mudstone sitting directly on top of the coal (Great Northern Seam). That portion of the fossilised tree stump recovered has a diameter of 110 mm (almost 4½ inches) and stands 100 mm (about 4 inches) high (Figure 2 and Figure 5). A shiny thin ‘skin’ encompasses the outer perimeter (Figure 2, Figure 5 and Figure 6) and represents the original tree bark, which upon burial was coalified. In contrast, the former wood has been silicified (literally turned to stone by impregnation with silica), though it is dull black from still being carbon-rich (Figure 6).

    Small pieces of the coalified bark and the silicified wood immediately underneath it were sent for radiocarbon (14C) analyses to Geochron Laboratories in Cambridge, Boston (USA), a reputable, internationally-recognized commercial laboratory. The laboratory staff were not told exactly where the samples came from, or their supposed evolutionary age, to ensure that there would be no resultant bias. This laboratory uses the more sensitive accelerator mass spectrometry (AMS) technique for radiocarbon analysis, now recognized as producing the most reliable results, even on minute quantities of carbon in samples.

    The radiocarbon results are listed in Table 1. There was detectable radiocarbon in the coalified bark, yielding a supposed 14C ‘age’ of 33,700 ± 400 years BP (before present). On the other hand, the small quantity of carbon extracted from the silicified wood sample was insufficient to yield a finite 14C ‘age’, so the result could only be reported as >48,800 years BP, beyond the detection limits. Of course, the wood inside a tree stump would not be >15,100 years older than the bark enclosing it. So the 14C ‘age’ of the bark places an ‘age’ limit on the immediately underlying silicified wood.

    Sample Type Lab Code 14C “Age” (years BP) δ13CPDB
    coalified bark GX-21867 33,000 ± 400 -27.2‰
    silicified wood GX-22613 >48,000 -26.7‰
    Table 1. Radiocarbon (14C) analyses of samples from the fossilised tree stump

    Of course, if the wood really were 250 million years old as is supposed, one should not be able to obtain a finite age from radiocarbon—all detectable 14C should have decayed away in a fraction of that alleged time.”

    Note that the testing was done by a reputable and experienced laboratory, The assumptions of C14 dating include
    1) We know the original amount of C14 in the substance.
    2) The substance was never subsequently contaminated by addition or subtraction of any relevant materials.
    3) The rate of C14 decay never changes.

    All these assumptions are open to challenge because they deal with unobserved past events. The results of “dating” on this basis are shown to be unreliable and cast great doubt on the millions of years commonly attributed to the age of coal..

    In addition, other studies using coal samples from a US government coal bank (so as to be able to document the provenance of the coal to be tested) also showed significant amounts of C14 in all cases. Even diamonds have been tested and found to contain measurable C14.

    “John Baumgardner’s carbon-14 results on coal, diamonds, and other carbon samples. 14C is ubiquitous in the ‘old’ material studied. Even the uniformitarian geologists have reported such results numerous times. Baumgardner sent carbon samples to an AMS dating lab. If a sample is over 100,000 years old, there should be no detectible 14C. All his samples still contained measurable 14C. So, all these ‘old’ samples must be less than 100,000 years old!

    The uniformitarian scientists of course cry ‘contamination’, but their claim becomes hollow when considering diamonds. It would indeed be difficult to contaminate a diamond, as it is the hardest substance known!”
    Furthermore, Baumgardner finds no correlation between the 14C abundance in coal and its putative age in the geological timescale, offering support that the coal samples are all the same age

  2. It gets worse – the progressive education system or the K-12 or common core standards, is producing a generation of ill thinking pseudo scientists who seem not to understand the primacy of data over interpretation, and hence will revise the data to fit the consensus as Jo Nova and others are pointing out with Australian BOM weather data, the “Rutherglen” example.

    There’s another radiometric conundrum – the late S.W. Carey, (expanding earthed), cited Briden et al who plotted all known rock radio dates and produced clustering of dates around three points in time – geologically the Alpide, KT event and an older Pangaean one, but no dates in between those clusters. Another case of censoring data to fit preconceptions or radio dating works but only if everything else remains constant. Change the orbital physics and/or electromagnetic fields the earth is immersed in and what do those dates actually mean.

    As for C14, I wonder what effect the Carrington event (1859) had on atmospheric C14?

  3. Stephen Kovaka says:

    Sad to say, I think this generation of “ill-thinking pseudo scientists” understands the primacy of funding and career path over both data and interpretation.. He who pays the piper, calls the tune.

  4. Pingback: Heinsohn and The Missing Trees | MalagaBay

  5. Pingback: Murry Salby: Control of Atmospheric CO2 | MalagaBay

  6. Pingback: The Arabian Horizon: The Big Chill | MalagaBay

  7. Pingback: The Red Score: The Baffin Crucible | MalagaBay

  8. I dislike this post
    You have made it more difficult than it need be. Surely you can use BP years and not dates that are in dispute?
    Until it be revised, I withold my imprimatur. It is suspect….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.