Scroll down to read this post.

 

My February birthday fund-raising campaign for this website, Behind the Black, is now over. Despite a relatively weak initial three weeks, the last week was spectacular, making this campaign the second best ever.

 

Thanks to every person who donated or subscribed. It continues to astonish me that people who can read my work for free like it enough to donate money voluntarily. Words cannot express my appreciation for that support, especially in these uncertain times.

 

If you have been a regular reader and a fan of my work and have not yet donated or subscribed, please consider doing so. I take no ads, I keep the website clean from pop-ups and annoying demands (most of the time). Thus, I depend entirely on my readers to support me. Though this means I am sacrificing some income, it also means that I remain entirely independent from outside pressure. By depending solely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, no one can threaten me with censorship. You don't like what I write, you can simply go elsewhere.

 

You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are five ways of doing so:

 

1. Zelle: This is the only internet method that charges no fees. All you have to do is use the Zelle link at your internet bank and give my name and email address (zimmerman at nasw dot org). What you donate is what I get.

 

2. Patreon: Go to my website there and pick one of five monthly subscription amounts, or by making a one-time donation.
 

3. A Paypal Donation:

4. A Paypal subscription:


5. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
 
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652


New data widens the margin of error in carbon dating

The uncertainty of science: New data suggests that the accuracy of carbon-14 dating, used mostly in archaeology and research covering the last few thousand years, has a wider margin of error than previously thought.

By measuring the amount of carbon-14 in the annual growth rings of trees grown in southern Jordan, researchers have found some dating calculations on events in the Middle East – or, more accurately, the Levant – could be out by nearly 20 years.

That may not seem like a huge deal, but in situations where a decade or two of discrepancy counts, radiocarbon dating could be misrepresenting important details.

To me, it seems somewhat arrogant for any scientist to assume this dating could be more accurate than this, especially going back several thousand years and especially considering the number of factors described in the article that they have account for and make assumptions about.

Nonetheless, documenting this margin of error means that the arrogant scientists of the future will have to include it in their research, rather than making believe it doesn’t exist.

Genesis cover

On Christmas Eve 1968 three Americans became the first humans to visit another world. What they did to celebrate was unexpected and profound, and will be remembered throughout all human history. Genesis: the Story of Apollo 8, Robert Zimmerman's classic history of humanity's first journey to another world, tells that story, and it is now available as both an ebook and an audiobook, both with a foreword by Valerie Anders and a new introduction by Robert Zimmerman.

 
The ebook is available everywhere for $5.99 (before discount) at amazon, or direct from my ebook publisher, ebookit. If you buy it from ebookit you don't support the big tech companies and the author gets a bigger cut much sooner.


The audiobook is also available at all these vendors, and is also free with a 30-day trial membership to Audible.
 

"Not simply about one mission, [Genesis] is also the history of America's quest for the moon... Zimmerman has done a masterful job of tying disparate events together into a solid account of one of America's greatest human triumphs."--San Antonio Express-News

4 comments

  • Phill O

    Bob, your disdain for the arrogance of scientist is; well, how should I say this: Well Founded!!!!

    First, the current method assumes that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere to be the same as today. Some may quote analysis to CO2 levels back then, but we get into more assumptions, some may not be valid.

    Secondly, it is well established that the variance for counting statistics is equal to the square root of the counts. Considering the low level radiation being counted and the half life of C14 of 5730 years, the random errors keep piling up. At best 2 significant figure can be had, but more conservative thinking gives one!

    Third, there is the experimental error involved in getting the C14 into solution (a scintillation cocktail).

    If anything, C14 dating can get one significant figure of accuracy.

    What is really scary about this, is the lack of basic understanding of the propagation of error by many “NEW” scientists.

    Yuo yourself are very wary of everything! Too bad the new recruits are not so discerning!

    But this is just my humble opinion: a retired analytical chemist.

  • mike shupp

    Actually, when I was taking anthropology courses a few years ago — well, a few decades ago — at Cal State Northridge, it was common knowledge that C14 dates were likely accurate to only 3 or 4 percent, and that the older the dates were the less certain they were. This doesn’t strike me as arrogance.

    What I suspect here is that somebody made a test. comparing different C14 datings of samples fairly certain to be the same age, demonstrating that this potential error was in fact one which occurred. And that explaining all this to a reporter afterwards wasn’t perfectly successful.

  • Phill O

    3-4% I do not agree! The problem is that there are way to many scientists producing numbers who do not have the expertise of a well trained analyst. If one gets 50% accuracy, that might be closer to the truth.

    I have been involved in many inter-laboratory analysis (Round Robin) and know the real discrepancies in numbers produced even by trained analysts.

  • David

    Long time since I studied carbon dating, what is the + – margin of C14 dating?

    “The problem with science is, scientists often find in favour of whoever financed the research” … my old collage head of science department professor.

    Science has a few problems to iron out, corruption and egos being the most stubborn creases.
    In some ways it is the best thing we ever did. Medicine, communication tech, space exploration, pasteurization of food, engineering tech etc.
    In other ways it is just an unethical, destructive, money grabbing dogmatic cult that sees what it wants to see. Covid and the tobacco corporations being a good example of such corruption.

    Much like politics, we need to clean science up too.

Readers: the rules for commenting!

 

No registration is required. I welcome all opinions, even those that strongly criticize my commentary.

 

However, name-calling and obscenities will not be tolerated. First time offenders who are new to the site will be warned. Second time offenders or first time offenders who have been here awhile will be suspended for a week. After that, I will ban you. Period.

 

Note also that first time commenters as well as any comment with more than one link will be placed in moderation for my approval. Be patient, I will get to it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *