Oldest Living Tree: National Geographic

  • Thread starter Thread starter lvlastermind
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Tree
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the methods used to determine the age of the oldest living tree, as reported by National Geographic. Participants explore the implications of these methods, including the challenges of dating living organisms and the accuracy of carbon dating techniques.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how the age of the root system was determined, noting that carbon dating cannot be applied to living trees.
  • One participant suggests that carbon dating was performed on dead parts of the roots, raising concerns about whether the oldest part of the tree was accurately identified.
  • There is a discussion about the calibration of carbon dating results, with one participant highlighting the difference between carbon dates and calendar dates.
  • Another participant introduces a metaphorical reference to the tree Yggdrasil, suggesting a whimsical interpretation of the tree's age.
  • Participants also touch on a separate topic regarding a 134-year-old woman, expressing skepticism about her age and the lack of clarity in her claims.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the methods used to determine the tree's age, with no consensus on the accuracy of the carbon dating or the implications of the findings. Multiple competing views remain regarding the validity of the age determination process.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the dating methods and the potential lack of calibration in carbon dating protocols. The discussion does not resolve these uncertainties.

lvlastermind
Messages
101
Reaction score
0
Just thought this was interesting...


http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080414-oldest-tree.html
 
Biology news on Phys.org
You're right. But how did they determine the age of the root system? Can't use carbon dating as its still living ...
 
This brings to mind the great tree Yggdrasil.
 
Maybe it's a talking tree and they just asked it how old it is.

By the way, anyone else see this supposedly 134 year old woman story?

I really wish they'd explained how she figures what her age is and more dialogue with her... I mean, if she's really that old she ought to remember things like the Boer War and World War I.
 
Yah i heard about that and wasnt sure what to make of it... Hard to imagine a 134 year old woman in a 3rd world country...
 
joeyar said:
You're right. But how did they determine the age of the root system? Can't use carbon dating as its still living ...

They carbon dated dead parts of the roots, raising two questions.

1. Did they really find the oldest part of the tree?
2. Is "9550" calendar date or carbon date?

Nowhere is hinted that they calibrated the carbon date, which is not always common practice. The standard protocol has not been used which is that:

9550 BP (before present) is a carbon date which would calibrate to 10,785 Cal BP (Calendar years before present)

If it was calibrated, hence 9550 Cal BP then the outcome of the carbon dating would have been 8638 BP.

The conversion table is here: Intcal04
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
10K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
9K