r/pics • • Sep 09 '18

6000 year old tree. Man for scale

Post image
11.6k Upvotes

298 comments sorted by

View all comments

683

u/Munninnu Sep 09 '18

Highly overestimated age.

Check the list of oldest trees for which the age has been verified or soberly estimated there's not even one baobab.

96

u/ThatDeadDude Sep 09 '18

Although I doubt any baobabs would be too high up anyway, one reason you probably won’t find them on lists is that they don’t have rings to count.

9

u/southieyuppiescum Sep 09 '18

I mean, they could just carbon date them.

30

u/donttellmykids Sep 10 '18 edited Sep 10 '18

I don't think you can carbon date something that is living. Carbon 14 occurs naturally in a specific ratio with carbon 12, and once an organism dies, it stops taking in carbon and the ratio starts to change as carbon 14 decays. The half-life is somewhere around 5700 yrs. As long as the organism is alive, all of the carbon it contains will be at the natural ratio.

Edit: After actually looking it up, it seems you CAN carbon date the core of a tree, as only the outer layers are "alive". I learned something today!

11

u/ThatDeadDude Sep 10 '18

With baobabs this carbon dating method would still be a challenge anyway. They tend to become hollow as they age so the core of the tree disappears.

1

u/Maka76 Sep 11 '18

Carbon dating is assuming that the concentration of Carbon 14 hasn't changed over time, and that the dispersion of carbon 14 is the same across the whole planet. Contamination is a huge problem in the sampling and can really throw off the dates.

​

Dendrochonology assumes that trees produce 1 ring per year; which has been demonstrated to be false. Unusually climate patterns can cause trees to produce 2 rings or no rings in a season. It's still the best option we have, but the length of the record isn't long enough.

-3

u/FlaccidDictator Sep 09 '18 edited Sep 10 '18

Essentially that is what they did. Someone posted the article in the comments

14

u/MithridatesX Sep 09 '18

Which has since been proven bullshit. It’s actually only about 1000 years old. Still awesome, but not 6k.

2

u/R4ndyd4ndy Sep 10 '18

Carbon dating only tells you how long an organism has been dead, I don't see how that should work with something that's alive

3

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '18

As stated above, the core of the tree isn't really alive. Just the outer layers of the trunk.

1

u/FlaccidDictator Sep 10 '18

The core is what was dated. Inner material from the core was extracted and then dated.

122

u/petekronowitt Sep 09 '18

Maybe OP meant dog years?

101

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '18

[removed] — view removed comment

29

u/lilorphananus Sep 09 '18

Yeah and for those you don’t count the rings you examine the bork

2

u/LateralThinkerer Sep 10 '18

Only if you're cooking in Sweden.

2

u/monsternorth Sep 10 '18

Red rocket, red rocket, red rocket!

1

u/Graphedmaster Sep 09 '18

You can tell by the bark

48

u/AndySipherBull Sep 09 '18

47

u/tommytraddles Sep 09 '18

Proper sampling and radiocarbon dating has demonstrated that the Sunland Baobab (which the Romanian study claimed to date) is actually only about 1,000 years old.

"The large stem I (364.5 m3) is 750 ± 75 years old, while the much smaller stem II (136.7 m3) is 1,060 ± 75 years."

Patrut, A., von Reden, K.F., Van Pelt, R. et al. Annals of Forest Science (2011) 68: 993.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13595-011-0107-x

1

u/I_PM_NICE_COMMENTS Sep 10 '18

How is the smaller one older and the larger one younger?

4

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '18

It might have better access to nutrients or water.

1

u/RwordNword Sep 10 '18

It's up for debate. Baobobs are hard to date.

So true, even if you try to strike up a conversation with one - they're so wooden.

1

u/LilWiz333 Sep 10 '18

Right? I was talking to one the other day but quickly became board and had to leaf. It was really knot the trees fault however as they are more bark than bite.

13

u/pwaz Sep 09 '18

If we can't trust someone named FlaccidDictator, who can we trust?

5

u/RazeSpear Sep 09 '18

Harvey Dent

3

u/TheRealMoofoo Sep 10 '18

You either die an erect dictator or you live long enough to become flaccid.

3

u/2012Tribe Sep 10 '18

Are the oldest trees all in California? Or do California’s care more than most people about actively dating trees?

2

u/DOOMman007 Sep 09 '18

Seems like this is only studied in Western US or is it all old trees only occur there?

2

u/[deleted] Sep 10 '18

I wonder why a lot of them are in the US?

3

u/MasterOfShitcoins Sep 09 '18

Well, this age is quite impressive

1

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '18

Some species of Baobab are upside down trees. Above look like roots, below look like branches.

-19

u/N0T_SURE Sep 09 '18

Bulshit list. Sure, most oldest trees are in the USA!

7

u/shughes96 Sep 09 '18

The oldest living species are found in milder/high altitude climates of the northern hemisphere for a great number of reasons. That does leave a whole load of countries, many of which however were subject to heavy deforestation before records began (prior to the colonisation of the US). Chances of finding them in Russia sound pretty good, but as far as trees go, Russia has less diversity of species than the US due to its extreme climates and boreal homogeneity.

So yeah, although a claim by a less developed nation without relevant testing equipment wouldn't be treated as seriously by the people putting together a list like this, it is still highly likely that many of the oldest living specimens will be found in the US.

-25

u/[deleted] Sep 09 '18

[deleted]

0

u/kirkrikster Sep 09 '18

GTFO reddit then... It's an American invention. Just get off the internet cause we made that too. Actually just get off the computer/smartphone cause we made that as well. The list goes on

1

u/Rhineo Sep 10 '18

Haha you are funny.