[_ Old Earth _] Carbon 14 Dating

[stovebolts]

The choice is yours whether or not to participate in a discussion that you have started, but clearly you have done nothing to discredit the validity of C14 dating as a reliable investigative tool.

And this is the problem LK. I have never set out to discredit the validity of C14 dating, only it's assumptions. I would have preferred to discuss an alternative view but I see the pattern that those types of discussions go down, and I'm not up for it.

What I find odd however, is how Scientists are now accepting that what was once thought as uncontaminated, can very well be contaminated. And if something can be contaminated, then just how reliable is the dating methods that they tout to be so reliable?

I have shown how the founder of C14 dating believed that underground contamination could not occur.

At the time of death, however, the assimilation process stops abruptly. There is no longer any process by which the carbon-14 from the atmosphere can enter our bodies.

Your self and Barbarian have stated that yes, underground contamination can occur and you yourself have stated that the theories themselves have evolved. But how have they evolved? They have evolved to support an earth billions of years old because that is how you choose to view the data.

When I mention reliability, I am not questioning the hard data. The hard data does not lie. It is quite static. What I have shown, is that even the founder of C14 data was wrong on one of his assumptions and have asserted that he is also wrong in regard to his theory on equilibrium.

Barbarian has brought forth a reasonable argument how diamonds or coal can have C14 in them, but it is only a hypothisis, it is not fact. The only fact we have is that there is C14 in some diamonds, as well as coal beds. The data doesn't lie.

My point has always been this. An evolutionist can come up with more hypothesis and adjust their theory accordingly to accommodate an old earth. But if a creationist questions the idea, and suggests that the earth is relatively young, he is instantly rejected.

Admit it, Mr. Willard Libby was wrong with his assumption on contamination. He was also wrong with his assumption of equalibrium.

 

[Barbarian]

So you take the line that the diamonds and the coal has been contaminated based on a hypothisis.

We know that this process produces Carbon-14. So unless someone can show that the laws of physics are different for coal and diamonds, C-14 in diamonds and coal is to be expected.

When Mr. Willard Libby wrote his theory, he asserted his assumptions as indesputable, yet we have two instances that clearly show that the father of carbon dating was either wrong, or his assumptions were wrong. The assertion on uranium and thorium that modern scientists boast is as assertive as Mr. Willards, respectfully.

It can be demonstrated. Ionizing radiation, striking Nitrogen-14, can convert it to Carbon-14. No hypothesis there.

I would conclude that we will interpret the raw data with the lense we see the world through. I see the world as only around 6000 years, and I can interpret the exact same data that Mr. Libby had to work with to support a young earth. You. And LK view the world as billions of years old. Should I expect any less from either of you?

Comes down to evidence. And that, for me, was decisive.

 

[lordkalvan]

And this is the problem LK. I have never set out to discredit the validity of C14 dating, only it's assumptions.

And those assumptions don't impact it's validity how, exactly?

I would have preferred to discuss an alternative view but I see the pattern that those types of discussions go down, and I'm not up for it.

Fair enough, but pointing to some known and accountable for uncertainties with C14 dating does not in and of itself invalidate the sound principles upon which it is based.

I have shown how the founder of C14 dating believed that underground contamination could not occur.

Your self and Barbarian have stated that yes, underground contamination can occur and you yourself have stated that the theories themselves have evolved. But how have they evolved? They have evolved to support an earth billions of years old because that is how you choose to view the data.

No, they have 'evolved' to incorporate more knowledge and better understanding, so improving the reliability and robustness of the methodology. C14 dating cannot directly support an Earth much older than 70 thousand years, but that is an intrinsic outcome of our understanding of the physics of radioactive decay and has nothing to do with how the data is 'chosen' to be viewed: it is viewed for what it is and the fact that it is consistent and consilient with other, quite independent dating methodologies, enhances our confidence in the conclusions we draw from it.

When I mention reliability, I am not questioning the hard data. The hard data does not lie. It is quite static. What I have shown, is that even the founder of C14 data was wrong on one of his assumptions and have asserted that he is also wrong in regard to his theory on equilibrium.

But you have not shown how either of these understandings on Libby's part cast doubt on the conclusions we draw from C14 data.

Barbarian has brought forth a reasonable argument how diamonds or coal can have C14 in them, but it is only a hypothisis, it is not fact. The only fact we have is that there is C14 in some diamonds, as well as coal beds. The data doesn't lie.

But as Barbarian has pointed out, the hypothesis is evidentially and experimentally supported and thus we can have confidence that it provides a valid explanation for the observed phenomenon.

My point has always been this. An evolutionist can come up with more hypothesis and adjust their theory accordingly to accommodate an old earth. But if a creationist questions the idea, and suggests that the earth is relatively young, he is instantly rejected.

Only insofar as s/he is unable to show exactly how and why the data showing an 'old' Earth is incorrectly interpreted and to offer a better account of the observed evidence that more plausibly, consistently and consiliently explains it in terms of a 'young' Earth. Simply cherry picking anomalous data and discounting explanations for those anomalies does not achieve this objective.

Admit it, Mr. Willard Libby was wrong with his assumption on contamination. He was also wrong with his assumption of equalibrium.

Lots of scientists have been wrong about lots of things. Science progresses. Newton failed to take general relativity into account when he was formulating his ideas about gravity. Does this mean Newton's ideas about gravity are worthless and should be disregarded? Science is about testing hypotheses and ideas to see how well they stand up to greater knowledge and understanding; it's how it progresses.

 

[stovebolts]

So you take the line that the diamonds and the coal has been contaminated based on a hypothisis.

We know that this process produces Carbon-14. So unless someone can show that the laws of physics are different for coal and diamonds, C-14 in diamonds and coal is to be expected.

When Willard Libby wrote his lecture on Carbon 14 dating, he was very direct in stating that there was no longer any process when something died that carbon 14 could enter it. Thus, the clock started ticking . Willard Libby, the founder of Carbon 14 dating was either wrong, or you are wrong.

If he was wrong, then this indeed shows that carbon 14 can be found where we wouldn't expect it to be found. And if it can be found where we wouldn't expect it to be found, couldn't we say the same for not finding it where we believe it should be?

In other words, do you believe that we can take the raw data from Carbon 14 dating and apply those direct results to a static formula and say without a shadow of a doubt that that based soley on the output of the testing that something is X years old? I think you will find the answer to be a solid "NO". But please, take the time to answer this for me.

When Mr. Willard Libby wrote his theory, he asserted his assumptions as indesputable, yet we have two instances that clearly show that the father of carbon dating was either wrong, or his assumptions were wrong. The assertion on uranium and thorium that modern scientists boast is as assertive as Mr. Willards, respectfully.

It can be demonstrated. Ionizing radiation, striking Nitrogen-14, can convert it to Carbon-14. No hypothesis there.

So modern Science has shown the founder of Carbon 14 dating wrong on one of his assumptions. Is that what you are saying?

It was demonstrated that we could put a man on the moon well before we did. I do not underestimate the power of demonstration, but I also know that recently Korea had a huge failure in what was demonstrated, and what occurred. I would appreciate seeing the research on this. Tell me, did they do their research with real diamonds? And were they able to find Carbon 14, or an increase in Carbon 14 in the diamond after their tests? I am very interested in seeing this data in an applied fashion.

I would conclude that we will interpret the raw data with the lense we see the world through. I see the world as only around 6000 years, and I can interpret the exact same data that Mr. Libby had to work with to support a young earth. You. And LK view the world as billions of years old. Should I expect any less from either of you?

Comes down to evidence. And that, for me, was decisive.

One will find the evidence to support their view. I am not ashamed to say I interpret the Bible in a way that puts the earth around 6000 years old and I don't need to adjust my view of scripture where God says he made the sun, moon and stars after he created the earth, divided the waters, created the atmosphere and had vegetation growing. To a scientist, I know it sound silly, but then so does a man raising from the dead yet we who call ourselves Christians believe that. Certainly, this contradicts scrience, or was Jesus being raised from the dead a metaphor, or was it just a story about somebody raising from the dead like so many before Christ had also claimed? Logically, Christians are just silly that way aren't we? I wonder what Lord Kelven would say?... But I think I already know.

But to your point, I believe that a Scientist should evaluate all options, yet a young earth is not an option they are willing to look at seriously. It doesn't' surprise me.

 

[Barbarian]

When Willard Libby wrote his lecture on Carbon 14 dating, he was very direct in stating that there was no longer any process when something died that carbon 14 could enter it.

If so, he's very wrong. Any nitrogen-14 atom, struck by ionizing radiation, can be transformed to carbon-14. I suspect you've been told something wrong about his opinions, since he depended on the process of nitrogen being converted to carbon by radiation.

If he was wrong, then this indeed shows that carbon 14 can be found where we wouldn't expect it to be found. And if it can be found where we wouldn't expect it to be found, couldn't we say the same for not finding it where we believe it should be?

Yes. And this is why we often can't use it. BTW, it's not used in paleontology, because the half-life is too short. But archaelogists often use it. Still, you have to be careful, because things like groundwater contamination can make the test invalid. There are entire books written on the things that have to be checked in order to validate C-14 testing.

In other words, do you believe that we can take the raw data from Carbon 14 dating and apply those direct results to a static formula and say without a shadow of a doubt that that based soley on the output of the testing that something is X years old? I think you will find the answer to be a solid "NO".

See above. Lots of things can't be tested by C-14. However, we can calibrate the system and see how accurate it is. (changes in the amount of radiation coming into the atmosphere would change the dating, for example)

The most accurate calibration comes from testing lake varves of known ages. Varves are a special sort of laminae that are laid down in some lakes annually, with one light and one dark layer, so you can count them to see how old each one is.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/varve.html

But please, take the time to answer this for me.

No problem.

So modern Science has shown the founder of Carbon 14 dating wrong on one of his assumptions. Is that what you are saying?

No. I suspect you've been misled about what he thought, especially, since he knew how C-14 is produced in the atmosphere.

It was demonstrated that we could put a man on the moon well before we did. I do not underestimate the power of demonstration, but I also know that recently Korea had a huge failure in what was demonstrated, and what occurred. I would appreciate seeing the research on this. Tell me, did they do their research with real diamonds? And were they able to find Carbon 14, or an increase in Carbon 14 in the diamond after their tests? I am very interested in seeing this data in an applied fashion.

Learn about it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

I would conclude that we will interpret the raw data with the lense we see the world through. I see the world as only around 6000 years, and I can interpret the exact same data that Mr. Libby had to work with to support a young earth.

Carbon-14 cannot give us any evidence one way or the other for the age of the Earth. Too short a half-life.

Comes down to evidence. And that, for me, was decisive.

One will find the evidence to support their view.

I'm not a postmodernist. I don't believe the truth is whatever we make it to be. And I'm quite aware that it is possible to objectively assess the evidence.

I am not ashamed to say I interpret the Bible in a way that puts the earth around 6000 years old and I don't need to adjust my view of scripture where God says he made the sun, moon and stars after he created the earth, divided the waters, created the atmosphere and had vegetation growing. To a scientist, I know it sound silly, but then so does a man raising from the dead yet we who call ourselves Christians believe that. Certainly, this contradicts scrience, or was Jesus being raised from the dead a metaphor, or was it just a story about somebody raising from the dead like so many before Christ had also claimed?

It doesn't contradict science, which takes no position at all on the supernatural. In fact, it can't.

Logically, Christians are just silly that way aren't we? I wonder what Lord Kelven would say?... But I think I already know.

Eventually, Rutherford's evidence convinced him he was wrong:
I came into the room which was half-dark and presently spotted Lord Kelvin in the audience, and realised that I was in for trouble at the last part of my speech dealing with the age of the Earth, where my views conflicted with his.
To my relief, Kelvin fell fast asleep, but as I came to the important point, I saw the old bird sit up, open an eye and cock a baleful glance at me.
Then a sudden inspiration came, and I said Lord Kelvin had limited the age of the Earth, provided no new source [of heat] was discovered. That prophetic utterance referred to what we are now considering tonight, radium! Behold! The old boy beamed upon me.

But to your point, I believe that a Scientist should evaluate all options, yet a young earth is not an option they are willing to look at seriously.

For the same reason phlogiston isn't an option they are willing to look at seriously.

 

[stovebolts]

When Willard Libby wrote his lecture on Carbon 14 dating, he was very direct in stating that there was no longer any process when something died that carbon 14 could enter it.

If so, he's very wrong.

So modern Science has shown the founder of Carbon 14 dating wrong on one of his assumptions. Is that what you are saying?

No. I suspect you've been misled about what he thought, especially, since he knew how C-14 is produced in the atmosphere.

Stovebolts scratches head... Willard Libby was "Very wrong", yet he wasn't wrong and you suspect I've been mislead. As an FYI, I have his lecture in pdf which is where I've pulled his quotes and by your own words, Libby was "Very Wrong" and you came to this conclusion using "Modern" science.

I set out to show how the assumptions of Carbon 14 dating can be erroneous, and both you and LK have affirmed those erroneous assumptions. But what baffles me, is how the picture is painted that somehow I've been mislead by something somebody else has said when in reality, it was Mr. Willard Libby who mislead scientists with his asserted the erroneous assumptions. See below quote.

The
specific activity is maintained at the level of about 14 disintegrations per minute per gram by the mixing action of the biosphere and hydrosphere. We assimilate cosmic-ray produced carbon-14 atoms at just the rate that the carbon-14 atoms in our bodies disappear to form nitrogen-14. At the time of death, however, the assimilation process stops abruptly. There is no longer any process by which the carbon-14 from the atmosphere can enter our bodies. Therefore, at the time of death the radioactive disintegration process takes over in an uncompensated manner and, according to the law of radioactive
decay, after 5,600 years the carbon that is in our bodies while we are alive will show half the specific carbon-14 radioactivity that it shows now. Since we have evidence that this has been true for tens of thousands of years, we should expect to find that a body 5,600 years old would be one-half as radioactive as a present-day living organism.

Learn about it here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/c14.html

It was a good article. One of the things I appreciated was how they used the words "Probably". In other words, at least they understand that they are still learning and have not come to a solid conclusion on the matter as they continue to try and figure this out. But bringing the OP back in line, I don't see any testing on diamonds to see if they can increase the c14 content. Regardless, nobody knows at what rate this would occur anyway.

And speakign of rate, that brings me back to equalibrium. Another assumption Willard libby was wrong about. Perhaps you could answer me this. Has modern science adjusted their dating methods to align with the earth not being in equalibrium?

 

[Barbarian]

Stovebolts scratches head... Willard Libby was "Very wrong", yet he wasn't wrong and you suspect I've been mislead. As an FYI, I have his lecture in pdf which is where I've pulled his quotes and by your own words, Libby was "Very Wrong" and you came to this conclusion using "Modern" science.

It is demonstrably true that nitrogen atoms can be converted to C-14 by ionizing radiation. That's how it happens in the upper atmosphere. And there's nothing magic about the upper atmosphere.

I set out to show how the assumptions of Carbon 14 dating can be erroneous, and both you and LK have affirmed those erroneous assumptions. But what baffles me, is how the picture is painted that somehow I've been mislead by something somebody else has said when in reality, it was Mr. Willard Libby who mislead scientists with his asserted the erroneous assumptions. See below quote.

I don't think anyone thought he was saying that C-14 could only be produced in the upper atmosphere.

The
specific activity is maintained at the level of about 14 disintegrations per minute per gram by the mixing action of the biosphere and hydrosphere. We assimilate cosmic-ray produced carbon-14 atoms at just the rate that the carbon-14 atoms in our bodies disappear to form nitrogen-14. At the time of death, however, the assimilation process stops abruptly. There is no longer any process by which the carbon-14 from the atmosphere can enter our bodies. Therefore, at the time of death the radioactive disintegration process takes over in an uncompensated manner and, according to the law of radioactive

Yeah, that's wrong. For example, buried bones saturated by groundwater can be infiltrated with organic carbon with more C-14. Nitrogen in coal deposits with uranium or thorium can be converted to C-14. And so on.

It can be the way he says, but archaeologists have to be careful to rule out all sorts of contamination before testing the material.

And speakign of rate, that brings me back to equalibrium. Another assumption Willard libby was wrong about. Perhaps you could answer me this. Has modern science adjusted their dating methods to align with the earth not being in equalibrium?

Calibration with lake varves shows the rate changes a bit, but not significantly. For most things, the error is less than the error of measurement.

 

[stovebolts]

Stovebolts scratches head... Willard Libby was "Very wrong", yet he wasn't wrong and you suspect I've been mislead. As an FYI, I have his lecture in pdf which is where I've pulled his quotes and by your own words, Libby was "Very Wrong" and you came to this conclusion using "Modern" science.

It is demonstrably true that nitrogen atoms can be converted to C-14 by ionizing radiation. That's how it happens in the upper atmosphere. And there's nothing magic about the upper atmosphere.

I understand. But Willard Libby, the founder of C14 dating was not aware of that at the time of his lecture.

I set out to show how the assumptions of Carbon 14 dating can be erroneous, and both you and LK have affirmed those erroneous assumptions. But what baffles me, is how the picture is painted that somehow I've been mislead by something somebody else has said when in reality, it was Mr. Willard Libby who mislead scientists with his asserted the erroneous assumptions. See below quote.

I don't think anyone thought he was saying that C-14 could only be produced in the upper atmosphere.

Your answer is coming from your modern science perspective... That is why in the below post you can firmly state that you disagree with Mr. Willard.

The specific activity is maintained at the level of about 14 disintegrations per minute per gram by the mixing action of the biosphere and hydrosphere. We assimilate cosmic-ray produced carbon-14 atoms at just the rate that the carbon-14 atoms in our bodies disappear to form nitrogen-14. At the time of death, however, the assimilation process stops abruptly. There is no longer any process by which the carbon-14 from the atmosphere can enter our bodies. Therefore, at the time of death the radioactive disintegration process takes over in an uncompensated manner and, according to the law of radioactive

Yeah, that's wrong. For example, buried bones saturated by groundwater can be infiltrated with organic carbon with more C-14. Nitrogen in coal deposits with uranium or thorium can be converted to C-14. And so on.

It can be the way he says, but archaeologists have to be careful to rule out all sorts of contamination before testing the material.

And that is my point. When Willard Libby lectured on Carbon 14 dating, he made a lot of assumptions. Assumptions that according to you, he was very wrong about. Scientists make lots of assumptions based on the perceived facts and some of those assumptions, as you've stated are found to be "very wrong". I don't understand why you have such a hard time with this... it's called Science, and that's how science works.

As far as nitrogen in diamonds converting into carbon 14, I have yet to see a proof of concept on that and I would maintain the idea that "Just because we think it can, doesn't mean it did"

And speakign of rate, that brings me back to equalibrium. Another assumption Willard libby was wrong about. Perhaps you could answer me this. Has modern science adjusted their dating methods to align with the earth not being in equalibrium?

Calibration with lake varves shows the rate changes a bit, but not significantly. For most things, the error is less than the error of measurement.

That was a good article. Thanks for sharing. But remind me if you would. How far back can these larve help one to calibrate Carbon 14 dating and what assumptions are taken in this process? Do you think that the current method of calibration will ever be modified and if so, what would drive it's readjustments?

 

[lordkalvan]

....How far back can these larve help one to calibrate Carbon 14 dating and what assumptions are taken in this process?

Carbon 14 dating can be calibrated no further back than the limits of the equipment that can measure the amount of Carbon 14 in organic material, i.e. not very much more than 60,000 years ago. The basic assumption that drives our understanding of these calibration methodologies is that consilience and consistency are strong indicators of the robustness of the evidence concerned. For example, if we can Carbon 14 date material of a known age to particular events whose actual date is also known, and if we can then identify other phenomena showing evidence of those events as well, and if the dates arrived at by examining each methodology independently of the others leads to dates statistically consistent with each other, we would require significant contradicting evidence to overturn conclusions drawn from extending those dating methodologies into the past to their analytical limits.

Do you think that the current method of calibration will ever be modified and if so, what would drive it's readjustments?

It is incrementally modified as better equipment and more data points are accumulated. Whether any new dating methodology is under development, perhaps leading to greater precision and refinement in calibrating other methodologies, is beyond my knowledge.

 

[Barbarian]

That was a good article. Thanks for sharing. But remind me if you would. How far back can these larve help one to calibrate Carbon 14 dating and what assumptions are taken in this process?

To the limit of equipment sensitivity. About 60,000 years, maybe. The assumptions are that the universe operates by normal laws, and that the Earth orbits the Sun (because we have to have one spring and one fall per year).

Do you think that the current method of calibration will ever be modified and if so, what would drive it's readjustments?

The lake varve method was given a tiny calibration adjustment by the varve data, which shows very small variations in C-14 in the atmosphere.

 

[stovebolts]

To the limit of equipment sensitivity. About 60,000 years, maybe. The assumptions are that the universe operates by normal laws, and that the Earth orbits the Sun (because we have to have one spring and one fall per year).



The lake varve method was given a tiny calibration adjustment by the varve data, which shows very small variations in C-14 in the atmosphere.

Is there any other way these layers can occur other than by consistent and reliable seasonal changes and is it possible to have multiple layers per year?

 

[lordkalvan]

Is there any other way these layers can occur other than by consistent and reliable seasonal changes and is it possible to have multiple layers per year?

Varves are diagnostically identified as seasonal deposition events occurring annually, due to differences in depositional material (e.g. particular pollen or seed types known to occur only at particular times of the year). Other laminations can deposit rapidly, but these are readily identifiable as such by geologists. Hope this helps.

 

[stovebolts]

Varves are diagnostically identified as seasonal deposition events occurring annually, due to differences in depositional material (e.g. particular pollen or seed types known to occur only at particular times of the year). Other laminations can deposit rapidly, but these are readily identifiable as such by geologists. Hope this helps.

is the only way for these deposits to occur in this fashion by annual means? I mean, if we took all that stuff, shook it up and poured it out, could it take the form of identifiable layers that we now see?

 

[lordkalvan]

is the only way for these deposits to occur in this fashion by annual means? I mean, if we took all that stuff, shook it up and poured it out, could it take the form of identifiable layers that we now see?

If this were to be the case, a mechanism would have to be hypothesised and tested for that caused different types of depositional material to be sorted in just the same fashion as mimics seasonal cycles repeated annually, in layers that are diagnostically indistinguishable from layers that have been observed and measured being formed in exactly this way since varves were first identified more than a century ago, and that explains the observation that the varves are dated by independent dating methodologies that agree with the analysis carried out by counting these layers.

 

[Barbarian]

is the only way for these deposits to occur in this fashion by annual means?

Yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve

I mean, if we took all that stuff, shook it up and poured it out, could it take the form of identifiable layers that we now see?

You can get some kinds of lamina that way, but not varves. You can even check it by seasonal distribution of pollen in the layers.

 

[stovebolts]

Yep. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varve



You can get some kinds of lamina that way, but not varves. You can even check it by seasonal distribution of pollen in the layers.

I see.. but that's not what I've been reading. Regardless, you make a point of seasonal pollen layers. Tell me, how many times a year can the same type of pollen be present throughout the year? I do believe that the Olive Tree will produce olives twice a year, so I assume that in order to do so, it would release pollen twice a year. Now, I've not done much research on the Olive Tree and I may be wrong, but I assume I'm correct.

So my question would be this. Are there sources of pollen that are produced multiple times a year by the same plant? Also, through the seasons, are there plants that release pollen at separate times from other plants? Would these pollen samples in varve be easily distinguishable?

 

[Barbarian]

I see.. but that's not what I've been reading. Regardless, you make a point of seasonal pollen layers. Tell me, how many times a year can the same type of pollen be present throughout the year?

In some climates, some plants pollinate pretty much continuously. You can't use that kind of pollen as an indicator. The ones I know of are in temperate zones, were there are definite seasons.

I do believe that the Olive Tree will produce olives twice a year, so I assume that in order to do so, it would release pollen twice a year. Now, I've not done much research on the Olive Tree and I may be wrong, but I assume I'm correct.

Yeah, that wouldn't work.

So my question would be this. Are there sources of pollen that are produced multiple times a year by the same plant?

Not for the pollen used to calibrate varves.

Also, through the seasons, are there plants that release pollen at separate times from other plants? Would these pollen samples in varve be easily distinguishable?

Yes, pollen grains are quite species-distinctive.

 

[lordkalvan]

I see.. but that's not what I've been reading.

Just out of interest, what have you been reading that tells you that varves cannot be identified as seasonally deposited layers recurring in annual cycles?

Regardless, you make a point of seasonal pollen layers. Tell me, how many times a year can the same type of pollen be present throughout the year?

The types of oollen used to help identify varves are known to occur annually and at particular times of the year. Seasonally occurring seeds, diatom blooms and sediment discharge are also used to identify varves.

I do believe that the Olive Tree will produce olives twice a year, so I assume that in order to do so, it would release pollen twice a year. Now, I've not done much research on the Olive Tree and I may be wrong, but I assume I'm correct.

So my question would be this. Are there sources of pollen that are produced multiple times a year by the same plant? Also, through the seasons, are there plants that release pollen at separate times from other plants? Would these pollen samples in varve be easily distinguishable?

I have no reason to doubt you are correct, but as these types of pollen are not used to identify varves, as varves are also identified by other features and as varve chronologies are verified by independent dating methodologies, your point is at best moot.

 

[Barbarian]

It should also be pointed out that there are different sorts of lamina that do not occur precisely on an annual or semiannual basis.

But not all lamina are varves, and geologists know how to tell the difference.

 

[zeke]

It should also be pointed out that there are different sorts of lamina that do not occur precisely on an annual or semiannual basis.

But not all lamina are varves, and geologists know how to tell the difference.

How exactly do scientists “know†varves are really 'annual events' and not diurnal?

A man-induced extensive silty layer in the sediment of Lake Lovojärvi, dating back to the year 1960, contained 18 laminations due to rhythmical variations in the size classes of the mineral particles. A good agreement was found between the thicknesses of the successive laminae, and one period in a sequence of arbitrary ‘wind sums’ calculated from the meteorological statistics of the spring 1960 for periods of winds exceeding 3 m/s. Most of these wind pulses were diurnal; the longest one lasted for five days. The deposition of the layer in early spring was further confirmed through diatom analysis, which revealed within the laminated sequence a diatom succession typical of Lake Lovojärvi immediately after the melting of ice in spring...abstract​