In 1994 Charles Ginenthal highlighted some of the fundamental problems associated with the Conflicting Chronologies produced by the mainstream Settled Scientists.
In retrospect, we find that the tree ring record is contradicted by the coral record, which is contradicted by the deep-sea tropical core record, which, outside the tropics, is contradicted by the Devil’s Hole core record.
Now the ice record is contradicted by the North American varve record…and all of this proves the accuracy of all of these dating methods?
The arguments posed by ice core advocates rest on their belief in the accuracy of the dating methods they point to.
However, when they assert that tree ring chronology is accurate and catastrophists ask them how they can tell whether narrow tree rings reflect sick or damaged trees, and not climate, they are silent.
When we ask how they can tell whether dead trees, correlated to arrive at their chronology, were living on slopes or flat land, they do not answer.
Ice core advocates cannot determine whether or not tree rings used to create their chronology were responding to illness, slope conditions or weather.
However, they say that tree rings support icecap chronology.
Why does the coral ring chronology fail to agree with the tree ring chronology?
When they discuss volcanic acid signals in the icecaps as support for the accuracy of their chronology and we ask what method accurately and reliably dates volcanic tephra, they say nothing.
An expert in this field has stated that, up to 1992, no such reliable method has been found.
When they discuss radiocarbon dating as support for the accuracy of their chronology and we ask how they determine whether a sample is contaminated or uncontaminated, they are silent.
They cannot determine whether or not radiocarbon samples used to create their chronology were contaminated; this is admitted by an expert in this field.
When they discuss deep sea core stratigraphy as support for their chronology and we ask why the Devil’s Hole core undermines its accuracy, they do not answer.
When they discuss Greenland ice cores, asserting the longevity of the icecap, and we ask them why its coldest northern region melted away but its warmer southern region did not, they say nothing.
Ice core advocates have not explained why the ancient Greenland and Antarctica maps, certified by professional cartographers and seismologists, accurately depict these regions and show only evidence of recent icecap formation there.
If Greenland and Antarctica were glaciated for so long, how were the accurate maps made?
When they discuss ice core layers as accurate markers of their chronology and we ask why large temperature swings in the icecaps are not correlated with varves on the land, they are silent.
When we ask how Ice Age ice in the Greenland cores can have 100 times the dust as ice from our era, when there should be less, they do not answer.
Ice Core Evidence – Charles Ginenthal – 1994
Therefore, I was very pleased when I stumbled across Leona Libby’s paper from 1976 describing her Japanese Cedar Isotopic Tree Thermometer
Further, we have measured an old Japanese cedar, Cryptomeria japonica or Yaku-Sugi (the 14C in the rings of which were measured by Kigoshi), for both hydrogen and oxygen isotope ratios.
Kigoshi counted the rings of this tree and verified the count by making 50 radiocarbon datings on them.
Ten dates were made on the oldest part of the tree, each to an accuracy of ±100 yr, for the years counted as AD 137-537.
The accuracy of his count in the oldest part is thus substantiated to an accuracy of ±100/√10 or ±30 yr, by the radiocarbon evidence.
Our samples represented approximately 5 yr each, so we cannot expect to find evidence for periods of less than about 40 yr in these data.
Isotopic Tree Thermometers
Leona Marshall Libby, Louis J Pandolfi, Patrick H Payton, John Marshall III, Bernd Becker and V Giertz-Sienbenlist
Nature 261, 284 – 288 – 27 May 1976
The beauty of Leona Libby’s chronology is that it avoids the dubious Settled Science deployed by dendrochronologists i.e. matching, aggregating and bridging.
One of the problems researchers encounter as they work their way back through history towards the Heinsohn Horizon is that trees have an alarming tendency to disappear into the oblivion of the Academic Abyss.
Dendrochronologists bridge these gaps in their individual chronologies by matching tree-ring samples from various sources.
Dendrochronologists even bridge the gaps between disparate chronologies by composite pattern matching.
Leona Libby’s Japanese Cedar chronology isn’t perfect but it is the only chronology I have encountered which avoids Settled Science and consensus seeking Settled Scientists.
I am also very pleased [and grateful] that Louis Hissink has performed wonders by digitising the original Japanese Cedar image published by Leona Libby.
The accuracy of the digitising process is astonishing and the digital format provides plenty of scope for additional graphics and analysis.
For connoisseurs of Japanese Cedar Isotopic Tree Thermometers the remainder of this post simply contains Japanese Cedar Isotopic Tree Thermometers images [for reference and reuse].