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.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four 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 or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
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.
Readers!
Please consider supporting my work here at Behind the Black. Your support allows me the freedom and ability to analyze objectively the ongoing renaissance in space, as well as the cultural changes -- for good or ill -- that are happening across America. Fourteen years ago I wrote that SLS and Orion were a bad ideas, a waste of money, would be years behind schedule, and better replaced by commercial private enterprise. Only now does it appear that Washington might finally recognize this reality.
In 2020 when the world panicked over COVID I wrote that the panic was unnecessary, that the virus was apparently simply a variation of the flu, that masks were not simply pointless but if worn incorrectly were a health threat, that the lockdowns were a disaster and did nothing to stop the spread of COVID. Only in the past year have some of our so-called experts in the health field have begun to recognize these facts.
Your help allows me to do this kind of intelligent analysis. I take no advertising or sponsors, so my reporting isn't influenced by donations by established space or drug companies. Instead, I rely entirely on donations and subscriptions from my readers, which gives me the freedom to write what I think, unencumbered by outside influences.
You can support me either by giving a one-time contribution or a regular subscription. There are four 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 or subscription:
4. Donate by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman and mailed to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
You can also support me by buying one of my books, as noted in the boxes interspersed throughout the webpage or shown in the menu above.
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.
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.
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.
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.