Funny carbon dating results
If you follow the link in footnote 25 from my article you will see a link to the Belfast tree ring correlations, so your statement, “There are several tree-ring chronologies which are reported to agree with each other” is already answered.
Obviously I am questioning the conclusions of that study.
You may now see our list and photos of women who are in your area and meet your preferences.
Again, please keep their identity a secret Click on the "Continue" button search with your zip/postal code.
For example, one study published by “a group of researchers from the U. Forest Service and the University of Minnesota” concludes fallen conifers will take 57 to 124 years to completely disintegrate, This, of course, depends on the exact environmental conditions, but fallen trees generally do not last for centuries, let alone millennia.
If these changes in the past have not been observed, then they cannot be accurately quantified and so the models cannot take such changes into account.He doubts that two different methods would produce the ‘same curve’ on a sample for the following reasons: C in the atmosphere is increasing over time.Not only are we not in equilibrium since Creation, but the magnetic field of the earth is continually declining.C, dendrochronology, and uranium-thorium (U-Th) dating techniques are indeed trustworthy, as are the experts and labs that perform these tests.He asks, “What did CMI do to disillusion them, and who is fooling who? Responses from CMI’s Gavin Cox (and some from Robert Carter on corals) are interspersed: There are several tree-ring chronologies which are reported to agree with each other, and C14 dating of rings enables a calibration curve for C14 against age to be constructed to account for variation of C14 production from time to time due to altered solar activity or volcanism.
First, just because several things agree does not make what they agree upon correct or true (i.e., ‘correlation does not prove causation’).