The Proceedings of the Eighth International Conference on Creationism (2018)

OVL>>100 years. The conclusion is clear. Dendrochronology, given its premises, and particularly sufficiently-high t-values (especially t≥7.0), is a valid methodology. Thus, any chronology-compressing explanation must take the conventionally-accepted crossmatching results fully into account. What is disputed in this paper is not the fact and the distinctiveness of the high-t crossmatches, but the exclusive climatic interpretation , of such high crossmatches, as pertaining to ancient trees. The fact that false crossmatches at P2YrsL t>6.0 (examples in Figures 3 and 4, and Table 2) and especially >7.0 (as those that are part of the next-to-last ensemble in Table 2) are exceedingly rare, is irrelevant to the Disturbance-Clustering hypothesis. When it comes to constructing the “bridges”, we are no longer concerned with preponderance of evidence—to the contrary. We are engaging in what may well be an extremely “cherry picking” procedure— one that is perfectly natural to the attempted linking-together of prehistoric tree-ring subchronologies (Baillie 1995). Let us briefly elaborate on the significance of the gateway statistics. Thus far, I have been emphasizing the P2YrsL test in CDendro. It must be stressed that the prospective crossmatch, against another series or against the master chronology, must “clear the hurdle” of not one but three crossdating algorithms [P2YrsL, Skel- Chi2 (t≥4.0), and Besancon (t≥5.0)](and do all that in addition to passing the block test*, though not as strictly)--a feat made more challenging by the fact that each algorithm has a different set of invulnerabilities to occasional, slightly-high artefactual crossmatches. My surveys of TRN and FIN indicates that the Skel-Chi2 and Besancon gateway statistics, while not absolute, are nearly so. That is, only 1%-2% of series had been included, by the original investigators, in TRN and FIN, respectively, in spite of failing Skel-Chi2, and only 6% and 3% (at OVL≥100 years), respectively, were included despite failing Besancon. The need for the high standards, described above, is clear. In a few instances, errors had been made in the past, while piecing- together the long oak chronologies. This owed to the former adoption of too-low dendrochonological standards, which had misled dendrochronologists into erroneously connecting the subchronologies together. For a history of the numerous revisions of the German Hohenheim long chronology, and related problems in the Belfast long chronology, see Larsson (2003-2018). 2. Replication of Individual Crossmatches: Their Transitive Relationship Correctly-crossmatched tree ring sequences do so transitively, as Woodmorappe ◀ Tree-ring chronology shortening via disturbances ▶ 2018 ICC 656 Table 2. Assorted Experimental Crossmatched Ensembles of Correctly- and Falsely-Matched Individual Series. (These ensembles are examples of potential “bridges” between “cores”, although they can also be considered small master chronologies in their own right). All series are Scots pine, and from TRN and FIN, except: BAL (Baloos, eastern Russia), GEO (Georgia), UN (Mongolia), and VEP (Slovakia). 1F3 denotes one series falsely added to three correctly-crossmatched series, 2F3 means two correctly-matched series falsely combined with three correctly-matched series, etc. The individual crossmatches (in the matrix) are compared with the interactive crossmatches with the master chronology. The least OVL of a series, with its master chronology, is provided in the rightmost column.