A radiocarbon dating question

[Oniomancer]

As long as they decay they are what they decay into, being bombarded by neutrons and by that changing molecular bounding properties is an aberration of the natural state, not a new state.

Let me simplify that: Even dressed in silk a monkey remains a monkey.

So uranium is really just lead and plutonium is mostly imaginary. Right.

To quote from Angel and the Ape, if I hit you with a hammer and that hammer disappears, you've still been hit with a hammer.

[cormac mac airt]

Thanks, a very useful reference. You may remember the reason behind all my questions - in my book Thera and the Exodus I, link many others, link the biblical plagues of Egypt and the Exodus to an eruption of Thera. I show that that the eruption must have occurred during the reign of Amenhotep III, ca. 1360 BCE. However, this link is summarily rejected by scholars as the final eruption of Thera was dated to ca. 1613 BCE by the RC dating of an olive tree found in Thera's ash.

It is perhaps more than a coincidence that the uncalibrated RC date for the calibrated date of 1610 BCE is 1364 BCE, which is very close to my postulated date. Assuming that 1360 BCE was the actual year of the eruption, the result of the RC dating process of the olive tree would have shown a decay to 66.4% (1360 BCE is 3373 years ago, exp(-3373g)=0.664, N₀=1). If, however, the eruption occurred in 1613 BCE (3626 years ago), what value of N₀ would give the same level of decay? The answer is N₀ = 0.664/exp(-3626g) = 1.031. In other words, a 3% change in N₀ results in a 253 year difference, for the same level of decay. How accurately can scientists predict the C¹⁴ content of the atmosphere that long ago?

Pretty accurately considering it's matched with dendrochronology as well as ages of lake bed settlements, etc. Also, an un-calibrated date will give one a date that is several hundreds of years younger than an item actually is. Which makes the 1364 BCE date in your example meaningless as it's already in error. That's why calibrated dates are used. Another good article on C14 can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-c14.html

cormac

[questionmark]

So uranium is really just lead and plutonium is mostly imaginary. Right.

To quote from Angel and the Ape, if I hit you with a hammer and that hammer disappears, you've still been hit with a hammer.

The question here is not with what you hit me but the nature of it. That many errors were committed (and still are used as convention) while defining elements does not change their nature. And they are certainly not useful when you are trying to explain the decay process of atoms containing more neutrons than can be bound by it in a stable fashion.

[Riaan]

Pretty accurately considering it's matched with dendrochronology as well as ages of lake bed settlements, etc. Also, an un-calibrated date will give one a date that is several hundreds of years younger than an item actually is. Which makes the 1364 BCE date in your example meaningless as it's already in error. That's why calibrated dates are used. Another good article on C14 can be found here:

http://www.talkorigi...owgood-c14.html

cormac

Would the C¹²/C¹⁴ atmospheric ratio be the same in the middle of a forest (presumably where the RC dated trees were found) and on an island in the sea (Thera) to within 3%? 3% is a very small difference.

[NatureBoff]

Because in those 9000 years there could have been a flare of solar activity, therefore more cosmic radiation and with that more C14, just as an example.

The millennial cycle, most likely 1800yr lunar tidal cycle imv, is also a factor. It could also be influences from inside the Earth too.

[questionmark]

Would the C¹²/C¹⁴ atmospheric ratio be the same in the middle of a forest (presumably where the RC dated trees were found) and on an island in the sea (Thera) to within 3%? 3% is a very small difference.

Could happen, depending on the age of the tested sample. The older the bigger the divergence in the ratio. That is mostly because the longer the time the less C14 is left.

[cormac mac airt]

Would the C¹²/C¹⁴ atmospheric ratio be the same in the middle of a forest (presumably where the RC dated trees were found) and on an island in the sea (Thera) to within 3%? 3% is a very small difference.

Considering that the middle of a forest and plants on an island are using the same atmosphere then yes, the atmospheric ratio would be the same. Your example of location is not a determining factor AFAIK, atmospheric conditions are. You might find this article of interest:

http://researchcommons.waikato.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10289/3622/Hogg%20Intcal09%20and%20Marine09.pdf;jsessionid=F0597B518EC319393AF77C8D3CF1656A?sequence=1

cormac

[Riaan]

The millennial cycle, most likely 1800yr lunar tidal cycle imv, is also a factor. It could also be influences from inside the Earth too.

With reference to my previous 2 posts above (see the calculations), if the flare of solar activity increased the C¹⁴ content of the atmosphere by 3% in the year 1360 BCE, the olive tree RC date of 1613 BCE for the eruption of Thera may be out by 253 years?

[Insanity]

An atom is distinguished to be a particular element by the number of protons in the nucleus, and could have any number of neutrons or electrons, stability aside. Isotopes have the same number of protons and electrons, and thus are of the same element, but differ in the number of neutrons.

Previously it was stated that the creation of ¹⁴₆C is by ¹⁴₇N gaining two neutrons, which is incorrect. If it was gaining two neutrons, than it would become ¹⁶₇N and would indeed be another isotope of nitrogen.

The nuclear chemistry only involves a single neutron and is ¹⁴₇N + ¹₀n --> ¹⁴₆C + ¹₁p, the net change is the lost of a proton. Until the number of protons changes again, it is carbon and this is why it chemically behaves like carbon, it is carbon.

The monkey in a silk dress is an appropriate analogy for isotopes such as when gaining or losing neutrons, but the lost or gain of a proton does indeed change the element and the monkey would become a pig or some other species.

That an isotope is really the element that it decays into doesn't work well with the isotopes that can and do decay into two or more different elements or isotopes, albeit at different ratios.

³⁶₁₇Cl is an example as it primarily decays into ³⁶₁₈Ar (98% of the time), and into ³⁶₁₆S (2% of the time) as well. Do we call Cl-36 Argon 98% of the time?

⁵³₂₈Ni decays into ⁵³₂₇Co (55%) and ⁵²₂₆Fe (45%) of the time.

³¹₁₈Ar decays into ³⁰₁₆S (55% of the time), into ³¹₁₇Cl (~40% of the time), into ²⁹₁₅P (~2.5% of the time), and into ²⁸₁₄Si (~2% of the time)

[questionmark]

An atom is distinguished to be a particular element by the number of protons in the nucleus, and could have any number of neutrons or electrons, stability aside. Isotopes have the same number of protons and electrons, and thus are of the same element, but differ in the number of neutrons.

Previously it was stated that the creation of ¹⁴₆C is by ¹⁴₇N gaining two neutrons, which is incorrect. If it was gaining two neutrons, than it would become ¹⁶₇N and would indeed be another isotope of nitrogen.

The nuclear chemistry only involves a single neutron and is ¹⁴₇N + ¹₀n --> ¹⁴₆C + ¹₁p, the net change is the lost of a proton. Until the number of protons changes again, it is carbon and this is why it chemically behaves like carbon, it is carbon.

The monkey in a silk dress is an appropriate analogy for isotopes such as when gaining or losing neutrons, but the lost or gain of a proton does indeed change the element and the monkey would become a pig or some other species.

That an isotope is really the element that it decays into doesn't work well with the isotopes that can and do decay into two or more different elements or isotopes, albeit at different ratios.

³⁶₁₇Cl is an example as it primarily decays into ³⁶₁₈Ar (98% of the time), and into ³⁶₁₆S (2% of the time) as well. Do we call Cl-36 Argon 98% of the time?

⁵³₂₈Ni decays into ⁵³₂₇Co (55%) and ⁵²₂₆Fe (45%) of the time.

³¹₁₈Ar decays into ³⁰₁₆S (55% of the time), into ³¹₁₇Cl (~40% of the time), into ²⁹₁₅P (~2.5% of the time), and into ²⁸₁₄Si (~2% of the time)

It does not matter how many times you want to repeat the nomenclature learned by heart (and evidently not understood): You still don't get a pig, you get a monkey that during some time behaves like a pig.

[Riaan]

Considering that the middle of a forest and plants on an island are using the same atmosphere then yes, the atmospheric ratio would be the same. Your example of location is not a determining factor AFAIK, atmospheric conditions are. You might find this article of interest:

http://researchcommo...656A?sequence=1

cormac

From the conclusion of this article:

The new calibration curves, ratified by the 20th International Radiocarbon Conference, are replacements for IntCal04 and Marine04 and should provide improved 14C calibration from 12–50 cal kBP. We realize that the assumption of a constant reservoir offset for the marine data is an oversimplification, but at present this is the only feasible option. It is also important to recognize that portions of the IntCal09 and Marine09 curves from 14.5–50 cal kBP rely heavily on the non-varved Cariaco Basin data set. The calibration framework is an ongoing, incrementally improving process over time as data are acquired and improved, so it must be realized that these new curves are not definitive but will be a significant improvement for samples older than ~12 cal kBP. More importantly, it provides a widely agreed curve, which is urgently needed for many fields of study.

Although this article concentrates on a later period, it shows the the calibration process is not perfect.

[cormac mac airt]

From the conclusion of this article:

The new calibration curves, ratified by the 20th International Radiocarbon Conference, are replacements for IntCal04 and Marine04 and should provide improved 14C calibration from 12–50 cal kBP. We realize that the assumption of a constant reservoir offset for the marine data is an oversimplification, but at present this is the only feasible option. It is also important to recognize that portions of the IntCal09 and Marine09 curves from 14.5–50 cal kBP rely heavily on the non-varved Cariaco Basin data set. The calibration framework is an ongoing, incrementally improving process over time as data are acquired and improved, so it must be realized that these new curves are not definitive but will be a significant improvement for samples older than ~12 cal kBP. More importantly, it provides a widely agreed curve, which is urgently needed for many fields of study.

Although this article concentrates on a later period, it shows the the calibration process is not perfect.

Of course it's not perfect, that's why dates are given with a range. But we're not talking about 14.5 - 50 cal kBP, we're talking about an event (Thera's eruption) that happened within the last 3613 +/- 10 years BP (1613 +/- 10 BC). Just because you'd like it to be 1360/1364 BC in order to substantiate your link doesn't make it so.

cormac

[questionmark]

Of course it's not perfect, that's why dates are given with a range. But we're not talking about 14.5 - 50 cal kBP, we're talking about an event (Thera's eruption) that happened within the last 3613 +/- 10 years BP (1613 +/- 10 BC). Just because you'd like it to be 1360/1364 BC in order to substantiate your link doesn't make it so.

cormac

And that is what most don't understand, science is never substantiated by one observation.

The Thira (sorry, prefer the Greek spelling) eruption is not only substantiated by C14 analysis but also by less spectacular means like ashes found in datable civilization strata.

[cormac mac airt]

And that is what most don't understand, science is never substantiated by one observation.

The Thira (sorry, prefer the Greek spelling) eruption is not only substantiated by C14 analysis but also by less spectacular means like ashes found in datable civilization strata.

And we're not just relying on one sample, the olive tree from the eruption, for a date as stated here:

A study led by archaeologist Sturt Manning from Cornell University obtained radiocarbon dates from 127 samples of wood, bone and seed from Akrotiri and other Aegean sites. Following calibration and cross-checking among three different laboratories, they date the eruption to between 1660 and 1613 BCE, within 95% confidence intervals.

http://www.heritagedaily.com/2012/12/debate-still-rages-over-date-of-thera-eruption/

So with 128 samples total (127 + the olive tree) showing a date within the 17th century BC that pretty much puts a nail in any attempt to relocate the event to nearly 300 years later IMO.

cormac

[questionmark]

And we're not just relying on one sample, the olive tree from the eruption, for a date as stated here:

http://www.heritaged...thera-eruption/

So with 128 samples total (127 + the olive tree) showing a date within the 17th century BC that pretty much puts a nail in any attempt to relocate the event to nearly 300 years later IMO.

cormac

Besides the little detail of the datable ashes found in Turkey (Watkins and others, 1978; Sigurdsson and others, 1990).

[Insanity]

It does not matter how many times you want to repeat the nomenclature learned by heart (and evidently not understood): You still don't get a pig, you get a monkey that during some time behaves like a pig.

I can understand why you say it is a monkey behaving like a pig for a duration, when in this case it is N14 becoming C14 and returning to N14, but it can get more complicated than that.

Cl36 as an example again. It can be naturally created from Ar36, Cl35, K39, and Ca40 via cosmic rays, but decays to Ar36 and S36.

Four different animals (or is it three?) that each separately learned to behave as another for a while and then behave as one that three of the previous weren't or behave as one that neither were?

We can explain chemistry however we wish, however, the nomenclature was developed so that people involve in that type of science would use the same terminology and methods of naming, rather than each person or group of people using there own as they saw fit at the time. Under the accepted nomenclature, carbon-14 is considered an isotope of carbon as it has 6 protons, regardless of the number of neutrons it has or having a half-life of 5,700 years.

We can disagree on whether carbon-14 is really a carbon atom, or nitrogen-14 behaving as a carbon atom for some time.

[Oniomancer]

The question here is not with what you hit me but the nature of it. That many errors were committed (and still are used as convention) while defining elements does not change their nature. And they are certainly not useful when you are trying to explain the decay process of atoms containing more neutrons than can be bound by it in a stable fashion.

It helps if you don't confuse the issue and the OP with erroneous statements, and since the decay process here is from one entire atomic number to another, it most certainly is erroneous. Duration doesn't matter as long as it ceases to be one element and becomes another, which by all conventions is does.

[Swede]

Chemically until it decays it is a carbon like isotope, not carbon. And because most people don't get that they have problems with understanding carbon dating.

Precisely. Isotopes are a variant of a given atomic structure based upon neutron count. However, the basic nature of an atomic structure is based upon its proton count. To elaborate:

N: Atomic No.= 7

Protons = 7

Electrons = 7

Neutrons = 7

C: Atomic No. = 6

Protons = 6

Electrons = 6

Neutrons = 6

¹⁴C:

Protons = 6

Electrons = 6

Neutrons = 8

You will note that both C and ¹⁴C have the same number of protons and ¹⁴C is thus not placed in the N series, which contains quite a number of radioactive isotopes.

.

[Swede]

With reference to my previous 2 posts above (see the calculations), if the flare of solar activity increased the C¹⁴ content of the atmosphere by 3% in the year 1360 BCE, the olive tree RC date of 1613 BCE for the eruption of Thera may be out by 253 years?

Merely a note or two:

While solar flares can and do influence ¹⁴C production, the effect is comparatively minimal, with the majority of ¹⁴C production being the product of cosmic rays.

With the above in mind, solar flare activity capable of increasing ¹⁴C production by 3% would have been a quite notable event. As such, one would expect such an event to appear as a notable spike in the calibration proxies. To my knowledge, there is not a spike of this nature/timeline reflected in the CALIB/OxCal programs. Have you actually run your "hypothesis" through these programs? And studied the graphics? OxCal is particularly clear in this regard.

As already presented by Cormac and Questionmark, you would appear to be attempting to hypothetically modify existing data to serve your own purposes.

.

[NatureBoff]

With reference to my previous 2 posts above (see the calculations), if the flare of solar activity increased the C¹⁴ content of the atmosphere by 3% in the year 1360 BCE, the olive tree RC date of 1613 BCE for the eruption of Thera may be out by 253 years?

Yes, I think you are right. I've come across this before where the uncalibrated carbon dates are intuitively more accurate than the calibrated dates. It was a report about beetles in the Holocene in arctic Siberia. The millennial cycle isn't well understood by mainstream science, therefore being generally ignored, so giving ample room for a deviation in the effectiveness of the calibration. The 253yr difference is easily within the bounds of error imv. Good luck with your excellent research. Edited July 17, 2013 by NatureBoff

[cormac mac airt]

Yes, I think you are right. I've come across this before where the uncalibrated carbon dates are intuitively more accurate than the calibrated dates. It was a report about beetles in the Holocene in arctic Siberia. The millennial cycle isn't well understood by mainstream science, therefore being generally ignored, so giving ample room for a deviation in the effectiveness of the calibration. The 253yr difference is easily within the bounds of error imv. Good luck with your excellent research.

Do you have a citation in support of that contention?

cormac

[NatureBoff]

Do you have a citation in support of that contention?

cormac

Yes. The periglacial climate and environment in northern Eurasia during the Last Glaciation. See Fig 6, it uses uncalibrated data.

[cormac mac airt]

Yes. The periglacial climate and environment in northern Eurasia during the Last Glaciation. See Fig 6, it uses uncalibrated data.

Which as stated were "calculated from two separate regression equations after about 40 AMS dates". Which means it wasn't "intuitive" by any means since it was uncalibrated in the sense that there was not enough of a consistent age sequence that could be used to define a meaningful calibration curve.

cormac

[NatureBoff]

Which as stated were "calculated from two separate regression equations after about 40 AMS dates". Which means it wasn't "intuitive" by any means since it was uncalibrated in the sense that there was not enough of a consistent age sequence that could be used to define a meaningful calibration curve.

cormac

[P.S. I was recalling from memory after looking at this paper a number of years ago].

Your missing the point that the amount of unknowns and potential errors in this proxy data gives Riaan sufficient cause to make his case for the 253yr discrepancy in his calculations. Similarly, the influence of the 1800yr tidal cycle is underestimated by mainstream science, which again gives the cyclic variation differential which Riaan is describing in his 9000yr climate connection.

1,800yr Lunar Tidal Cycle Fits Glacial Data

@Riaan: 1800yr x 5 = 9000yrs

[cormac mac airt]

[P.S. I was recalling from memory after looking at this paper a number of years ago].

Your missing the point that the amount of unknowns and potential errors in this proxy data gives Riaan sufficient cause to make his case for the 253yr discrepancy in his calculations. Similarly, the influence of the 1800yr tidal cycle is underestimated by mainstream science, which again gives the cyclic variation differential which Riaan is describing in his 9000yr climate connection.

1,800yr Lunar Tidal Cycle Fits Glacial Data

@Riaan: 1800yr x 5 = 9000yrs

Your 1800 year lunar cycle has nothing to do with the production of Carbon 14, so it's really irrelevant. At best it's an interesting oddity. And since C14 testing wasn't the only method used, per the article, then your objection to the results there aren't really relevant either. For you to even have a meaningful argument you'd have to, in the least, show how the IRSL/OSL dates are also in error. You've not done so.

cormac