Non-Radiometric Dating Methods

[Truthfrees]

MOD HAT

Posts are missing due to being Off Topic

 

[RickG]

Here's a link to Northern Arizona University's Amino Acid Geochronology Laboratory describing the method, a relative dating method in which they specialize. ACG is also used in conjunction with absolute dating methods in which the ACG part refines the absolute method even more. Also, like sclerochronology, AAG is also very important in determining paleoclimates and temperatures.

http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/SESES/AAGL/Method/

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Here's a link to Northern Arizona University's Amino Acid Geochronology Laboratory describing the method, a relative dating method in which they specialize. ACG is also used in conjunction with absolute dating methods in which the ACG part refines the absolute method even more. Also, like sclerochronology, AAG is also very important in determining paleoclimates and temperatures.

http://nau.edu/CEFNS/NatSci/SESES/AAGL/Method/

Thanks for the info, Rick. Now it's interesting since the opening paragraph, it mentions that ACG is also used on teeth and egg shells. So I guess that answers my childhood question of 'how did scientists know that dinosaurs lived in warmer climates?'.

 

[RickG]

Thanks for the info, Rick. Now it's interesting since the opening paragraph, it mentions that ACG is also used on teeth and egg shells. So I guess that answers my childhood question of 'how did scientists know that dinosaurs lived in warmer climates?'.

I'm putting together a new OP for a thread specific more to paleoclimates rather than dating, hopefully sometime later today or tomorrow.

 

[Astrophile]

There are numerous non-radiometric dating methods and techniques most people are unaware of. I thought it would be nice to get off the radiometric horse for a while and discuss some of these other methods. For those of you not familiar with them here's a list.

Annually Banded Records

Dendrochronology
Varve Chronology
Lichenometry
Ice Cores
Speleothems
Corals
Molluscs​

Relative Dating Methods

Rock Surface Weathering
Obsidian Hydration Dating
Pedogenesis
Relative Dating of Fossil Bone
Amino Acid Geochronology​

Age Equivalence

Oxygen Isotope Chronostratigraphy
Tephrochronology
Paleomagnetism
Palaeosols​

Do crater counts on the surfaces of planets, satellites and asteroids count, or are you referring only to terrestrial dating methods?

 

[RickG]

Do crater counts on the surfaces of planets, satellites and asteroids count, or are you referring only to terrestrial dating methods?

If you have something on that, by all means educate us. I am unfamiliar with any such method.

 

[Ophiolite]

If you have something on that, by all means educate us. I am unfamiliar with any such method.

It is the basic method for determining the age, absolute and relative, of surfaces on the terrestrial planets and larger moons. Given a reasonably constant flux of impactors, the older the surface the more impacts it will have sustained. This is what lets us map out the chronology of Mars' geology. It is what tells us that Venus experienced a major resurfacing event inn the last billion years. It is so established as a technique I am not sure how many decades I would have to go back to find a review article on it. (But I'll give it a go.)

Edit: Here is a reasonably early application. Paleocratering of the Moon: Review of Post-Apollo data

This abstract should be helpful to you:

Craters as “fossils”: The remote dating of planetary surface materials
GEORGE E. McGILL
Abstract
The need to determine relative ages of materials and surfaces on moons and planets other than the Earth has resulted in the development of dating techniques that are based on the density or the morphology of craters and that supplement the classical techniques of physical stratigraphy. As is the case with the fossil-based relative time scale on Earth, crater-based relative ages can, in principal, be calibrated with radiometric ages of returned samples. Relative ages determined by crater density or crater morphology rest on a small number of basic assumptions concerning the morphology of fresh craters, the randomness of crater-formation processes, and the rates and areal constancy of crater-degradation processes. The validity of these assumptions varies from planet to planet. Despite the problems and controversies that inevitably accompany the development of major new techniques, the basic principles underlying the use of craters to determine relative ages are well established and logically sound.

Geological Society of America Bulletin, 1977, v. 88 no. 8 p. 1102-1110

 

[RickG]

It is the basic method for determining the age, absolute and relative, of surfaces on the terrestrial planets and larger moons. Given a reasonably constant flux of impactors, the older the surface the more impacts it will have sustained. This is what lets us map out the chronology of Mars' geology. It is what tells us that Venus experienced a major resurfacing event inn the last billion years. It is so established as a technique I am not sure how many decades I would have to go back to find a review article on it. (But I'll give it a go.)

Edit: Here is a reasonably early application. Paleocratering of the Moon: Review of Post-Apollo data

This abstract should be helpful to you:

Craters as “fossils”: The remote dating of planetary surface materials
GEORGE E. McGILL
Abstract
The need to determine relative ages of materials and surfaces on moons and planets other than the Earth has resulted in the development of dating techniques that are based on the density or the morphology of craters and that supplement the classical techniques of physical stratigraphy. As is the case with the fossil-based relative time scale on Earth, crater-based relative ages can, in principal, be calibrated with radiometric ages of returned samples. Relative ages determined by crater density or crater morphology rest on a small number of basic assumptions concerning the morphology of fresh craters, the randomness of crater-formation processes, and the rates and areal constancy of crater-degradation processes. The validity of these assumptions varies from planet to planet. Despite the problems and controversies that inevitably accompany the development of major new techniques, the basic principles underlying the use of craters to determine relative ages are well established and logically sound.

Geological Society of America Bulletin, 1977, v. 88 no. 8 p. 1102-1110

Thanks for sharing that ophiolite, indeed a very interesting dating method.

 

[Loudmouth]

As is the case with the fossil-based relative time scale on Earth, crater-based relative ages can, in principal, be calibrated with radiometric ages of returned samples.

That would seem to disqualify this dating method for this thread, but interesting nonetheless.

 

[Ophiolite]

That would seem to disqualify this dating method for this thread, but interesting nonetheless.

Perhaps not. The calibration via radiometric data is to determine absolute ages. Relative ages, which constitute the bulk of results from this method, are still possible. Unless Rick was aiming only to discuss absolute dating - which may be his intention.

 

[RickG]

Perhaps not. The calibration via radiometric data is to determine absolute ages. Relative ages, which constitute the bulk of results from this method, are still possible. Unless Rick was aiming only to discuss absolute dating - which may be his intention.

Only in respect with correlation to non-radiometric methods. In fact I have already have touched on it myself with the amino acid method. For example, Uranium dating can provide an absolute date for a specific area. But the amino acid method can recognize a chronology within that absolute date providing information much like ice cores with paleoclimates.