Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talkrational: crosspost me again and you'll draw back a stump

Topic: RH Brown and Carbon 14 (Read 13373 times) previous topic - next topic

Rumraket and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2850
Now he's a reductionist.
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2851
In b4 "it's hundreds of thousands of people subconsciously biasing the results to agreement".
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2852
Let me clarify something you asked, Dave:

For samples with count-dates for before your Flood, if there is NO error in count-date, the radiocarbon dates will agree, and that will work whether RH Brown is right or wrong.

If RH Brown is right, the curve will zoom off to 50,000+ years as the count-date approaches the Flood date.  If he isn't, it won't.

However, if you and RH Brown are right about the Flood, then ALL count-dates older than 5000 years MUST be wrong.

So all samples with count dates older than 5000 years are going to give a radiocarbon date that bears no relation to ANY model.  The are mistakes.

And different samples will have different mistakes.  So the curves won't agree.  There will be a huge amount of scatter for any sample with old count-dates. And probably for younger ones too, as it would mean that basically layer-counters don't know what they are doing.

Does that make more sense now?

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2853
Well you seemed to be pretty interested in one thing - Lake K - for quite a while.  And Testy was interested in one thing - dendrochronology.   How about let's return to the  specific example  of Lake K to illustrate what you are talking about?  Everybody says I'm scared of it but that's not true. I actually like it because it's specific. I hate generalities.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2854
One question I have about Lake K is... Why are there only 9000 "varves"?   Why not 50,000 or 100,000 like in Lake Suigetsu?

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2855
Well you seemed to be pretty interested in one thing - Lake K - for quite a while.  And Testy was interested in one thing - dendrochronology.   How about let's return to the  specific example  of Lake K to illustrate what you are talking about?  Everybody says I'm scared of it but that's not true. I actually like it because it's specific. I hate generalities.

What happened to "big picture Dave".

Of course, we all know the reason you suddenly want to shift the conversation to something else. It's amusing that it's Lake K though.
  • Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 04:41:36 PM by Martin.au
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2856
One question I have about Lake K is... Why are there only 9000 "varves"?   Why not 50,000 or 100,000 like in Lake Suigetsu?

Because it's younger. That's when the lake was isolated from Lake Vanern. Haven't you read the Stanton paper?
"That which can be asserted with evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." (Dave Hawkins)

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2857
One question I have about Lake K is... Why are there only 9000 "varves"?   Why not 50,000 or 100,000 like in Lake Suigetsu?

What a transparent shitehawk.

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2858
Well you seemed to be pretty interested in one thing - Lake K - for quite a while.  And Testy was interested in one thing - dendrochronology.  How about let's return to the  specific example  of Lake K to illustrate what you are talking about?  Everybody says I'm scared of it but that's not true. I actually like it because it's specific. I hate generalities.
Nice try, Dave. The lake K thread is open,. That's where you can discuss it. The big advantage of that is having the rebuttals to your lies, misrepresentations, and red herrings right there.

This thread is about Brown's model and 14C dating. At the moment we're discussing the agreement of 14C dating and other independent methods, and how that affects our evaluation of Brown. Which requires looking at the results of the dating methods. Only. How they work is an interesting but different topic.

Again, even if you discredited each of the dating methods (nobody can) they would still agree, except if we use Brown's model. Then there's disagreement. Pingu is carefully, accurately, and simply describing how that arises.

And very specifically.

It scares you shitless.

You are so transparent!


  • Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 04:59:47 PM by JonF
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2859
While I'm asking questions, I have one for Mike...  why would Brown have picked the reservoir formula that he did and use that 375 year figure?  ( you can't say "he assumed his conclusion" because we don't know that )

It seems that that formula DOES apply to a reservoir which is receiving a steady supply of some contaminant and the contaminant goes away somewhere with a mean life of 375 years. Agreed?

You could use a 5 gallon bucket of water with a steady drip of bleach going into it as an analogy.   The bleach is volatile and goes away at a certain rate and you would get some equilibrium concentration of bleach given a known drip rate.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2860
 
One question I have about Lake K is... Why are there only 9000 "varves"?   Why not 50,000 or 100,000 like in Lake Suigetsu?
To make idiots ask questions.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2861
While I'm shaking in my boots, avoiding Pingu's post like the plague

ffify

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2862
Well you seemed to be pretty interested in one thing - Lake K - for quite a while.  And Testy was interested in one thing - dendrochronology.   How about let's return to the  specific example  of Lake K to illustrate what you are talking about?  Everybody says I'm scared of it but that's not true. I actually like it because it's specific. I hate generalities.
I wasn't "interested" in dendrochronology.  I told you I would debate you on any topic you wanted and you could pick my side to demonstrate that you are an idiot. You chose dendrochronology, thus making my point before we even started. You still don't seem to understand what I did in that debate. Which is fine. I actually did "do it for the lurkers, or, more specifically,  for Google indexing.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2863
While I'm asking questions, I have one for Mike...  why would Brown have picked the reservoir formula that he did and use that 375 year figure?  ( you can't say "he assumed his conclusion" because we don't know that )

It seems that that formula DOES apply to a reservoir which is receiving a steady supply of some contaminant and the contaminant goes away somewhere with a mean life of 375 years. Agreed?


http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,1511.msg111959.html#msg111959



Quote
You could use a 5 gallon bucket of water with a steady drip of bleach going into it as an analogy.  The bleach is volatile and goes away at a certain rate and you would get some equilibrium concentration of bleach given a known drip rate.
We went through the reasons why your bucket "model" doesn't work way back.


"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2864
Well you seemed to be pretty interested in one thing - Lake K - for quite a while.  And Testy was interested in one thing - dendrochronology.  How about let's return to the  specific example  of Lake K to illustrate what you are talking about? 
So you can speculate again about how it's conceivably possible that the varves aren't annual layers? What's the point? Pingu has already stipulated that it's possible for a given method to give an inaccurate date. The point is that if one method is inaccurate, there's no reason it should give the same results as a different method. If the varve counts are wrong, why do they give the same results as dendrochronology and all the other INDEPENDENT methods? That's the observation that YEC cannot explain.

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2865
While I'm asking questions, I have one for Mike...  why would Brown have picked the reservoir formula that he did and use that 375 year figure?  ( you can't say "he assumed his conclusion" because we don't know that )
I don't know "Why" Brown chose that formula.  I already told you how the 375 year figure was derived (JonF's post above has the references).
If I were to speculate, then here is my commentary.  Like all models you have to have a "set-up" to approximate what is going on in the problem at hand.  Brown's "problem" was in his assumptions (global flood at year 5,000bp, stable 14C readings at year 3500bp) and since he saw that the issue here was reaching the equilibrium values to achieve valid dates at 3500ybp he reached out for an equilibrium formula.
After reading Brown's paper, and other papers, there are further mistakes that Brown makes in his set-up, interpretation of results and explanations.  Comments that may explain one item he is investigating but contradicting comments and models he made earlier.  I can go into more detail, but that just reveals additional details of mistakes, not fundamental mistakes of choosing the wrong model set-up.

Quote
It seems that that formula DOES apply to a reservoir which is receiving a steady supply of some contaminant and the contaminant goes away somewhere with a mean life of 375 years. Agreed?

You could use a 5 gallon bucket of water with a steady drip of bleach going into it as an analogy.   The bleach is volatile and goes away at a certain rate and you would get some equilibrium concentration of bleach given a known drip rate.
But I explained this in my past posts (linked by JonF above).
The contaminant is fed at varied concentrations (not fixed), the concentration in the reservoir is changing also but since you have variable (not fixed) concentrations in ALL the connected bodies (reservoir, inputs and outputs) then you don't use an equilibrium equation to study the dynamics.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2866
Well you seemed to be pretty interested in one thing - Lake K - for quite a while.  And Testy was interested in one thing - dendrochronology.  How about let's return to the  specific example  of Lake K to illustrate what you are talking about?  Everybody says I'm scared of it but that's not true. I actually like it because it's specific. I hate generalities.

Dave: I was trying to explain to you why the radiocarbon calibration data are a direct test of Brown's model.  I was going through it step by step.  You helpfully told me as we went along that whether you understood so far.

Then we hit a problem, and you asked the very good question:

Pingu ...  you are getting better about saying things more simply but this last post is still too complicated.  Try to explain it like you were explaining it to a third grader.  I don't understand why we would not expect all the curves to agree under EITHER model.  Why would that be exclusive to the OE model?

It really is an excellent question, and so I posted this response:

Pingu ...  you are getting better about saying things more simply but this last post is still too complicated.  Try to explain it like you were explaining it to a third grader.  I don't understand why we would not expect all the curves to agree under EITHER model.  Why would that be exclusive to the OE model?

OK, Dave, that is a good question.

Let's step back a bit to where we last  had an agreement:

  • changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratio will affect ALL samples from any given date EQUALLY.
  • Errors in count-date, because they arise from many different kinds of errors, will be DIFFERENT for different sources.


And let's first consider samples where the count-date is <5000 years old.

Let us imagine we have a set of samples for which we have both count date and radiocarbon date (calculated using N0=modern values).  This is what we would see if there were NO errors in the count date, and ALL the deviation from the 1:1 line are due to atmospheric C14:C12 ratios being different in the past:



The ORANGE datapoints are what we would see if Brown's model is correct. The BLACK data points are what we would see if N0 has been constant for the past 5000 years.  The BLUE datapoints are what we would see if something else had been the case, for instance if N0 was slightly higher in the past.

And if we kept taking more and more samples, always correctly identifying annual layers and never miscounting them or misidentifying them, we'd get more and more data points, and they would all agree:



If Brown was right, they'd all lie on Brown's line; if the "N0=constant" was right, they'd all lie on the 1:1 line; and if something else was right, they'd all lie on that line.

The AGREEMENT between the curves would tell you that the count was accurate, and the CURVE itself would tell you how much atmospheric C14:C12 ratios have changed, and by how much, over the past 5,000 years.

Am I making sense so far?


But you did not respond.

I then posted a couple of followups:
http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,1511.msg118510.html#msg118510
http://talkrational.org/index.php/topic,1511.msg118568.html#msg118568

as I had a bit of time yesterday, but will be busy most of today.  I also posted this:

Let me clarify something you asked, Dave:

For samples with count-dates for before your Flood, if there is NO error in count-date, the radiocarbon dates will agree, and that will work whether RH Brown is right or wrong.

If RH Brown is right, the curve will zoom off to 50,000+ years as the count-date approaches the Flood date.  If he isn't, it won't.

However, if you and RH Brown are right about the Flood, then ALL count-dates older than 5000 years MUST be wrong.

So all samples with count dates older than 5000 years are going to give a radiocarbon date that bears no relation to ANY model.  The are mistakes.

And different samples will have different mistakes.  So the curves won't agree.  There will be a huge amount of scatter for any sample with old count-dates. And probably for younger ones too, as it would mean that basically layer-counters don't know what they are doing.

Does that make more sense now?

If these posts do NOT make sense to you, pleases try to identify the parts you either don't understand or disagree with.

If they DO, then lets talk about the ways in which multiple datasets (including the Lake K datasets) could give the SAME erroneous count-dates.  Because you have already AGREED that count-date errors will affect each dataset DIFFERENTLY whereas changes over time in atmospheric C14:C12 ratios will affet each dataset in the SAME way.

I await your response.
  • Last Edit: September 24, 2017, 02:46:43 AM by Pingu

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2867
Everybody says I'm scared of it but that's not true. I actually like it because it's specific. I hate generalities.

That isn't even true, Dave.  On your sustainable agriculture thread you insist on vast generalities, and are constantly thinking up "thought experiments" with no specifics about climate, context, habitat, ecosystem, whatever.  You talk about Big Buttons that will "save agriculture".

You LOVE "generalities" when you are proposing them and they support your desired conclusion.  You accuse the rest of us of being octohatter reductionists when we want to talk about details. But you HATE "generalities" when they point away from your desired conclusions.  You accuse us of being "vague" and "hand-waving" and of refusing to discuss DETAILS.

This comes back to what I said about models and data.  Data are details.  The model is the sense we make of the data.  The model at one level becomes the data at the next.  Models are useless without data. Brown's model needs data to test it. The data to test it against are the radiocarbon calibration data.

Lake Kalksjon alone contradicts Brown's model.  The ONLY way in which Lake Kalksjon could be consistent with Brown's model would be if it JUST SO HAPPENED that the lower 6000 varves (but not the upper 3000) have count-date errors that JUST HAPPEN TO EXACTLY MATCH the deviation from the dates given by the N0=constant formula.

And maybe if you stare at the DETAILS long enough, you can figure out some way in which this might have happened.  And to convince yourself that there is maybe some evidence in there that it DID happen in some very counter-intuitive manner (exactly what you accuse us of doing, in fact, when we say that sloths might well only have used Rampart Cave for pooping in at birthing, time and not in every year, and you dismiss it as "ridiculous"). 

But you THEN have to explain why that EXACT SAME amount of count-date error is the SAME as the error made from dendrochronologies and in other lakes, and in corals.

And when you've done that, you have to explain why samples where the count date is in the tens of thousands, which, according to you, must ALL be total bullshit, STILL return radiocarbon dates that form a nice coherent line, just a little younger than the 1:1 line that you'd get if N0 had been constant.

If those samples are bullshit, as your model says they must be - why don't they return random radiocarbon ages?  GIGO, except that we get sensible answers out ,which suggests that the input must also make sense.

Do you begin to get a glimmer of the problem here?


Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2868
When I say "I hate generalities" I mean that I hate it when people make vast sweeping statements they don't know to be true because they have not slogged through the details enough to know what they are talking about.  Here's an example ... "Straw bale houses have moisture problems" ... I heard someone say this one recently and - predictably - it was made by someone who has never experimented with straw bale housing.  I - on the other hand - HAVE experimented with straw bale housing so I can authoritatively say that "Straw bale houses do NOT have moisture problems if they are built properly.  There are several different approaches to this."  Another example ... "Dave's goats are going to go crazy living in that cage" or "Dave's goats are going to eat something poisonous because Dave doesn't even know what plants are in his pasture."  Vague generalities based on something someone has read but not based on detailed personal experience.  I - on the other hand - DO have detailed personal experience and my experience refutes these vague notions.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2869
As for Carbon 14, you've kinda lost me and anyway I think it's more important for me to figure out this reservoir thing first ... because without that, how can I begin to address questions like Lake K?

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2870
As for Carbon 14, you've kinda lost me and anyway I think it's more important for me to figure out this reservoir thing first ... because without that, how can I begin to address questions like Lake K?

What you are perfectly capable of doing, Dave, because you've actually shown you are, is understanding that the equation to derive a radiocarbon date from the C14:C12 ratio in a sample includes a value (N0) that represents "modern values" (pre nuclear testing actually) of atmospheric C14:C12 ratios.

And you also understand that the date returned is the date that WOULD BE correct if atmospheric ratios had been the same for millenia.

You also understand that we need not ASSUME this - we can actually FIND OUT how "out" that number is by testing materials of known date.

You have indicated you understand this, and your posts also reflect this understanding.  It's not third grade math, but it's easily within your grasp, as you have shown.

You also understand that if there are ERRORS in the date we get from counting layers, they will affect each sample differently, whereas changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratios at the time when the sample was photosynthesised will affect ALL samples at that date.

You therefore also understand that if the CURVES (count-date plotted against radiocarbon date) AGREE, we can read off the atmospheric C14:C12 ratio at the time of the sample from the curve WHATEVER THOSE VALUES WERE.

This means that IF BROWN IS RIGHT and the count-dates are good, we will find out.  And if he is NOT right, we will find out what IS right.  It means we ASSUME nothing.

We don't even ASSUME that the count-dates are correct. As you have ALREADY AGREED, if the count dates are NOT correct, the error will be different for each set of samples and the CURVES WILL NOT AGREE.

So: if the CURVES AGREE (and they do) we know the count-dates are correct, and we can read the true fluctuations in atmospheric C14:C12 ratios from that curve.

And they do NOT support Brown.  They do NOT support a Global Flood. They DO indicate that atmospheric C14:C12 ratios were slightly higher in the past (which is NOT an input assumption, it is an OUTPUT).

Your repeated assertion that "no Global Flood" is an input assumption is false.  It is not.  If there was a Global Flood, we'd see that in the output.  We don't.

QED.

  • Last Edit: September 24, 2017, 04:29:32 AM by Pingu

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2871
When I say "I hate generalities" I mean that I hate it when people make vast sweeping statements they don't know to be true because they have not slogged through the details enough to know what they are talking about.  Here's an example ... "Straw bale houses have moisture problems" ... I heard someone say this one recently and - predictably - it was made by someone who has never experimented with straw bale housing.  I - on the other hand - HAVE experimented with straw bale housing so I can authoritatively say that "Straw bale houses do NOT have moisture problems if they are built properly.  There are several different approaches to this."  Another example ... "Dave's goats are going to go crazy living in that cage" or "Dave's goats are going to eat something poisonous because Dave doesn't even know what plants are in his pasture."  Vague generalities based on something someone has read but not based on detailed personal experience.  I - on the other hand - DO have detailed personal experience and my experience refutes these vague notions.
"There is overwhelming proof of a global flood".
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

  • Zombies!
  • Honorary Manipulative Bitch
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2872
As for Carbon 14, you've kinda lost me
 Spoiler (click to show/hide)
How it that possible that you are lost?  For pity's sake, Dave! Pingu is explaining this as if you were a dim fifth grader.
STOP BADGERING.
You clearly can figure out how this will end, but stop running.
My own theory is that he kens fine he jist disnae wantae.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2873
As for Carbon 14, you've kinda lost me and anyway I think it's more important for me to figure out this reservoir thing first ... because without that, how can I begin to address questions like Lake K?

What you are perfectly capable of doing, Dave, because you've actually shown you are, is understanding that the equation to derive a radiocarbon date from the C14:C12 ratio in a sample includes a value (N0) that represents "modern values" (pre nuclear testing actually) of atmospheric C14:C12 ratios.

And you also understand that the date returned is the date that WOULD BE correct if atmospheric ratios had been the same for millenia.

You also understand that we need not ASSUME this - we can actually FIND OUT how "out" that number is by testing materials of known date.

You have indicated you understand this, and your posts also reflect this understanding.  It's not third grade math, but it's easily within your grasp, as you have shown.

You also understand that if there are ERRORS in the date we get from counting layers, they will affect each sample differently, whereas changes in atmospheric C14:C12 ratios at the time when the sample was photosynthesised will affect ALL samples at that date.

You therefore also understand that if the CURVES (count-date plotted against radiocarbon date) AGREE, we can read off the atmospheric C14:C12 ratio at the time of the sample from the curve WHATEVER THOSE VALUES WERE.

This means that IF BROWN IS RIGHT and the count-dates are good, we will find out.  And if he is NOT right, we will find out what IS right.  It means we ASSUME nothing.

We don't even ASSUME that the count-dates are correct. As you have ALREADY AGREED, if the count dates are NOT correct, the error will be different for each set of samples and the CURVES WILL NOT AGREE.

So: if the CURVES AGREE (and they do) we know the count-dates are correct, and we can read the true fluctuations in atmospheric C14:C12 ratios from that curve.

And they do NOT support Brown.  They do NOT support a Global Flood. They DO indicate that atmospheric C14:C12 ratios were slightly higher in the past (which is NOT an input assumption, it is an OUTPUT).

Your repeated assertion that "no Global Flood" is an input assumption is false.  It is not.  If there was a Global Flood, we'd see that in the output.  We don't.

QED.


here's his post from the lake k thread where he "deals" with a single curve (lake k in this case)
As far as I can make out from his tortured analogy, he has at least conceded that he has no explanation for the "pixie dust" with which the lower 6,000 of Lake Kalksjon's varves managed to look exactly as though they were laid annually, just like the upper 3,000, right down to their identical thickness and composition and their radiocarbon and palaeomagnetic dates.

For some reason those pixies really wanted people to think that the last Ice Age, and any Global Flood, was more than  9,000 years ago.

Or did you mean something else, Dave?
I don't have "NO explanation" ... I have a tentative explanation ... I know that many layers such as those in Lake K can be laid in a single year, especially if conditions are not "normal" as they are now.  And the elephant in the room is that conditions were indeed not normal back a few thousand years ago.
Again, that is a conclusion, not data. In this case, data would be the varve counts agreeing with brown's curve or no coherence anywhere among the counted and c14 dated layers. As Pingu pointed out, one of those two would need to be the case for Brown's curve to be "supported with data."

also:
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #2874
As for Carbon 14, you've kinda lost me and anyway I think it's more important for me to figure out this reservoir thing first ...
already done, in the posts by me and Mike a little above.

Quote
because without that, how can I begin to address questions like Lake K?
You don't need to begin to address Lake K in this thread.

Even if you could discredited each of the dating methods (nobody can) they would still agree, except if we use Brown's model. Then there's disagreement. Pingu is carefully, accurately, and simply describing how that arises.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins