No, I didn't miss that. I even stated earlier that the intraannular rings do
not occur in the same ratio in the trees. In otherwords it appears that the
slow growing periods didn't occur during the same part of the year for the
various trees.
YSC002 has the first year ring that is 3.2 mm wide. The 3 slow growth zones
(which is his sigunature) occur at .55 mm, 1.2 mm and 2.2 mm
YSC010 has the first year ring 3.0 mm. The 3 slow growth zones occur at .95
mm, 1.2 mm, and 2 mm
YSC013 has the first year ring 5.54 mm. The 3 slow growth zones occur at
2.95,3.8 and 4.8 mm.
YSC015 has the first year ring of 6.0 with the 3 slow growth zones occurring at
2.1,2.6, 4.5 and one not on the others at 5.0.
This will be enough to illustrate the problem. Assuming a linear growth rate
YSC002 has slow growth periods at
(.55/3.2)*12=2.06 months
(1.2/3.2)*12=4.5 months
(2.2/3.2)*12=8.25 months
YSC010 has the same growth changes at 3.8, 4.8, and 8 months. The last two
are probably ok.
YSC013 has the same growth changes at 6.38, 8.2, 10.4 months
YSC015 has the 3 zones at 4.2, 5.2, 9, and 10 months.
The last intraannular ring in year 5 is a singlet on YSC002, a doublet on
YSC)10 a doublet on YSC013 and a singlet on YSC015
A similar analysis on year 3 intraanular rings would show similar problems
and the bands on the year 2 ring have little correlation across the series.
Since the intraannular rings don't look the same from tree to tree and when
that is combined with the lack of correspondence in the overall lack of
correlation of ring widths, I have serious doubts about the conclusion.
If you only measure the ring widths, there is not enough data to
>effect a correlation in ha dozen rings. Whereas Fritz et. al. used only
>ring widths for their determination, and therefore were restricted to
>subjective matches, the intraannual rings matching within the matching
>ringwidths, make Mike's work truly objective.
Ring widths are rather more objective, I would think, since one can measure
it with a ruler.
I will repeat this, since I
>seem not to be getting through. If only ringwidths were involved, what
>Mike found is interesting, but not compelling (same as Fritz), but when the
>matched rings exhibit intraannual bands that match up as well, the
>certainty of the match is guaranteed. Check it out.
I did even before you wrote this. And go back and look to see that I did say
that there was no correlation in the intraanular rings. If I recall
correctly, it was Roth's book which caused me to order Arct's dissertation
and thesis. I think I sent this information to Roth when I reviewed his
book. I will be interesting to see if he argues against my points when he
publishes it.
glenn
Adam, Apes, and Anthropology: Finding the Soul of Fossil Man
and
Foundation, Fall and Flood
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm