Tree-ring growth. In the early 1900s an American astronomer named Andrew E. Douglass went looking for terrestrial records of past sunspot cycles and not only found what he sought but also discovered a useful dating method in the process. The focus of his attention was the growth rings in trees—living trees, dead trees, beams in ancient structures, and even large lumps of charcoal. The key documents for tree-ring dating, or dendrochronology, are those trees that grow or grew where roots receive water in direct proportion to precipitation. Under such a situation, the annual tree rings vary in wi .
By providing shade from the heat of the sun, giving us wood products, and turning carbon dioxide into oxygen, trees play an important role in our society and the Earth’s ecosystem. From the beginning of history, we have relied on trees of various types to meet our needs. Much can be learned about a species of tree and its environment by discovering its age, and researchers employ several methods to date trees.
Tree-Ring Dating The most common, most accurate way to find the age of a tree is to count the number of rings visible when their trunk is cut horizontally. Each year, most trees add an extra layer of growth to their trunks.
Over time, their trunks get thicker and thicker. As the tree gets older, the inside of the trunk looks like it is made up of a series of circles. The center of these circles, or the absolute core of the tree, is known as the pith. Since each ring corresponds to roughly one year of growth, making it possible to get a highly accurate estimate of a tree’s age. This use of tree-ring dating to find the age of a tree is also known as dendrochronology. Researchers can also learn about what a tree endured during a particular year by the condition of the ring they are studying.
Counting the Rings There are two possible ways to access the rings of a tree so that they can be counted. First, one may simply cut down the tree itself. Of course, this will kill the tree, so it is not recommended as a method for tree dating unless the tree is already dead or if there is no other way of accessing the information.
The second method of accessing the rings of a tree for counting is to take a core sample of the tree trunk. To take a sample, researchers use a tool called an increment borer that takes only a portion of the trunk measured from the pith to the bark of the tree.
This method of sampling is less harmful to the tree, but taking part of the tree core does run the risk of injuring the tree. Pests, the natural elements, and other things can also invade the core of the tree after a core sample is taken and harm the trunk. Taking core samples at a point in the year where pests and rain are less likely to be present can help lessen some of this risk.
Once the core sample is obtained, the tree’s age is determined by counting the number of rings evident in the sample. Dating Trees without Rings & Different Methods of Dating The tree-ring dating method works well for most trees; however, it cannot be used to find the age of all trees. That is because some trees don’t have rings or they have rings that are very hard to discern from a trunk cross section or sample. Trees that cannot be dated using the tree-ring method include some species of palm trees, as well as certain trees that grow in desert conditions.
These types of trees are known as monocots, and their age is determined mainly by comparing them with other plants. For example, a palm tree can be compared with another tree whose age is known in order to get an estimate of the palm’s age. Radiocarbon dating has also proven useful in dating these trees.
Although cutting into and counting the rings of a tree is one of the best ways to determine its age, it is possible to get a good estimate of a tree’s age without cutting into it. First, measure the diameter of the tree at a point 54 inches from the ground.
This can be done by wrapping a tape measure around the tree to find it’s circumference and then dividing that number by 3.14. Multiply the result by the growth factor for that tree species as given by the International Society of Arboriculture.
• • • • • • • • • • • • • • •
best tree ring dating method - Radiocarbon Dating, Tree Rings, Dendrochronology
Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow, but this depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood (from long-dead trees) using carbon-14 dating.
by Tree ring dating (dendrochronology) has been used in an attempt to extend the calibration of carbon-14 dating earlier than historical records allow.
The oldest living trees, such as the Bristlecone Pines ( Pinus longaeva) of the White Mountains of Eastern California, were dated in 1957 by counting tree rings at 4,723 years old.
This would mean they pre-dated the Flood which occurred around 4,350 years ago, taking a straightforward approach to Biblical chronology. However, when the interpretation of scientific data contradicts the true history of the world as revealed in the Bible, then it’s the interpretation of the data that is at fault.
It’s important to remember that we have limited data, and new discoveries have often overturned previous ‘hard facts’. Recent research on seasonal effects on tree rings in other trees in the same genus, the plantation pine Pinus radiata, has revealed that up to five rings per year can be produced and extra rings are often indistinguishable, even under the microscope, from annual rings.
As a tree physiologist I would say that evidence of false rings in any woody tree species would cast doubt on claims that any particular species has never in the past produced false rings. Evidence from within the same genus surely counts much more strongly against such the notion. Creationists have shown that the biblical kind is usually larger than the ‘species’ and in many cases even larger than the ’genus’—see my article . Considering that the immediate post-Flood world would have been wetter with less contrasting seasons until the Ice Age waned (see ), many extra growth rings would have been produced in the Bristlecone pines (even though extra rings are not produced today because of the seasonal extremes).
Taking this into account would bring the age of the oldest living Bristlecone Pine into the post-Flood era. Claimed older tree ring chronologies depend on the cross-matching of tree ring patterns of pieces of dead wood found near living trees.
This procedure depends on temporal placement of fragments of wood using carbon-14 ( 14C) dating, assuming straight-line extrapolation backwards of the carbon dating. Having placed the fragment of wood approximately using the 14C data, a matching tree-ring pattern is sought with wood that has a part with overlapping 14C age and that also extends to a younger age.
A tree ring pattern that matches is found close to where the carbon ‘dates’ are the same. And so the tree-ring sequence is extended from the living trees backwards. Now superficially this sounds fairly reasonable. However, it is a circular process.
It assumes that it is approximately correct to linearly extrapolate the carbon ‘clock’ backwards. There are good reasons for doubting this.
The closer one gets back to the Flood the more inaccurate the linear extrapolation of the carbon ‘clock’ would become, perhaps radically so. Conventional carbon-14 dating assumes that the system has been in equilibrium for tens or hundreds of thousands of years, and that 14C is thoroughly mixed in the atmosphere. However, the Flood buried large quantities of organic matter containing the common carbon isotope, 12C, so the 14C/ 12C ratio would rise after the Flood, because 14C is produced from nitrogen, not carbon.
These factors mean that early post-Flood wood would look older than it really is and the ‘carbon clock’ is not linear in this period (see , ). The biggest problem with the process is that ring patterns are not unique. There are many points in a given sequence where a sequence from a new piece of wood matches well (note that even two trees growing next to each other will not have identical growth ring patterns). Yamaguchi recognized that ring pattern matches are not unique. The best match (using statistical tests) is often rejected in favour of a less exact match because the best match is deemed to be ‘incorrect’ (particularly if it is too far away from the carbon-14 ‘age’).
So the carbon ‘date’ is used to constrain just which match is acceptable. Consequently, the calibration is a circular process and the tree ring chronology extension is also a circular process that is dependent on assumptions about the carbon dating system. The extended tree ring chronologies are far from absolute, in spite of the popular hype. To illustrate this we only have to consider the publication and subsequent withdrawal of two European tree-ring chronologies.
According to David Rohl, the Sweet Track chronology from Southwest England was ‘re-measured’ when it did not agree with the published dendrochronology from Northern Ireland (Belfast). Also, the construction of a detailed sequence from southern Germany was abandoned in deference to the Belfast chronology, even though the authors of the German study had been confident of its accuracy until the Belfast one was published. It is clear that dendrochronology is not a clear-cut, objective dating method despite the extravagant claims of some of its advocates.
Conclusion Extended tree ring chronology is not an independent confirmation/calibration of carbon dating earlier than historically validated dates, as has been claimed. References • Yamaguchi, D.K., Interpretation of cross-correlation between tree-ring series. Tree Ring Bulletin 46:47–54, 1986. . • Newgrosh, B., Living with radiocarbon dates: a response to Mike Baillie.
Journal of the Ancient Chronology Forum 5:59–67, 1992 . . • Rohl, David, A Test of Time, Arrow Books, London, Appendix C, 1996. . This excellent new resource contains 40 articles taken from the last 40 years of Creation magazine (with some updated, as necessary), covering a wide range of origin-topics—all bound together in a beautiful, hard-cover package. 128 brilliantly-illustrated pages packed with real-world evidence for biblical creation.
We have supplied this link to an article on an external website in good faith. But we cannot assume responsibility for, nor be taken as endorsing in any way, any other content or links on any such site. Even the article we are directing you to could, in principle, change without notice on sites we do not control. Creation Ministries International (CMI) exists to support the effective proclamation of the Gospel by providing credible answers that affirm the reliability of the Bible, in particular its Genesis history.
CMI has offices in Australia, Canada, Singapore, New Zealand, United Kingdom, South Africa and United States of America. ©2018 Creation Ministries International.
Drill for dendrochronology sampling and growth ring counting Dendrochronology is tree-ring dating. It is a method of dating which uses the patterns of in trees.
In many types of wood, the time rings were formed can be dated to the exact calendar year. Dendrochronology has three main uses: • , where it is used to calibrate . • , where it is used to date old buildings, etc. • palaeoecology, where it is used to determine certain aspects of past In some parts of the world, it is possible to date wood back a few thousand years, or even many thousands.
The maximum for "fully anchored chronologies" is a little over 11,000 years from present. The term "fully anchored chronology" means the dates are absolutely certain. Dendrochronology (word derived from , dendron, "tree limb"; , khronos, "time"; and , ) was developed during the first half of the 20th century originally by the astronomer A.E. Douglass, who founded the Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research at the .
Douglass researched activity. He expected changes in solar activity would affect climate patterns on Earth. The climate would be recorded by tree-ring growth patterns.
The phenomenon of tree rings and their relationship with wet and dry years had been noticed before Douglass. There is a brief note in one of 's notebooks, and in 1837 came up with the same idea. Many trees in make one growth ring each year, with the newest adjacent to the bark. Through a tree's life, a year-by-year ring pattern is formed which reflects the climatic conditions in which the tree grew.
Adequate moisture and a long growing season result in a wide ring. A drought year may result in a very narrow one. Alternating poor and favorable conditions, such as mid summer droughts, can result in several rings forming in a given year.
Problems like this are fixed by comparing one part of the world with another. Missing rings are rare in and trees: the only recorded instance of a missing ring in oak trees occurred in the year 1816, also known as the . Trees from the same region will tend to develop the same patterns of ring widths for a given period.
These patterns can be compared and matched ring for ring with trees growing in the same geographical zone and under similar climatic conditions. Following these tree-ring patterns from living trees back through time, chronologies can be built up, both for entire regions, and for sub-regions of the world. Thus wood from ancient structures can be matched to known chronologies (a technique called cross-dating) and the age of the wood determined precisely.
The tree-ring dates can be extended back to 26,000 BP by using other methods. Those other methods use marine layers and growth rings in . • This is needed because the concentration of in the varies with time and place. The relatively short-lived 14C is renewed by bombardment on atmospheric . The bombardment is slightly variable.
• McGovern P.J. et al (1995). . "Science in archaeology: a review". AJA 99 (1): 79–142 . . • Watson, Peter 2009. Ideas: a history, from Wittgenstein to the word wide web. London: Folio Society, p294. Original edition was titled A terrible beauty: the people & ideas that shaped the modern world.
London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 2000. • Lori Martinez (1996). . Retrieved 2008-11-08. • BP = Before Present, where "present" is 1 January 1950.
• Reimer, Paula J. et al (2004). (PDF). Radiocarbon 46 (3): 1029–58 . . • Fairbanks, Richard. . Columbia.
Evolution Debunked Pt3: Tree Ring Dating not Logical Beyond 3500 years