Interaction with John Baumgardner

Creation vs. Evolution : Article and Details, Please? · Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link · My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940 · And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Interaction with John Baumgardner

Before first reading of the Cambridge article:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

on own wall

Article and Details, Please?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/09/article-and-details-please.html

John Baumgardner - can you help out, please?

added below

[800 - 400 BC is right the period where I am or was putting the evening out to 100 pmC.]

John Baumgardner

As a point of clarification, that quote referring to the Hallstat Disaster is _not_ from my RATE chapter on C-14.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

OK, do you know where it _is_ from?

John Baumgardner

In a quick Internet search, I found the term 'Hallstatt radiocarbon plateau' first mentioned in a 2003 review article in Quaternary Science Reviews by Zolitschka et al. This term refers to a 400 year long interval from about 800 to 400 BC during which global C-14 levels were more or less constant. That period had already been named by the archeological community the "Hallstatt Period" for the early European Iron Age. The name is from that of the village of Hallstatt in Austria famous for its salt mines even before that period. High-precision decadal calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950-6000 BC.

A 1993 paper in the journal Radiocarbon by Stuvier and Becker entitled "High-precision decadal calibration of the radiocarbon time scale, AD 1950-6000 BC" had shown that radiocarbon levels during that interval coinciding with the Hallstatt Period had been almost constant. That meant that the use of C-14 for events during that time period had unacceptably large uncertainties for most archeologists.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Ah, ok. I'll try to find a link.

Here?

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC
Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2) +
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 July 2016
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/highprecision-decadal-calibration-of-the-radiocarbon-time-scale-ad-19506000-bc/F1AB60097B0184501418D3EAEAD2EA90

What if archaeologists are wrong on what the real years should be?

John Baumgardner

In dealing with European history, archeologists largely rely on radiocarbon for what they assume are close to actual dates for the successions of occupations, for example, that they study. The mounting complexities with radiocarbon, for example, the 'Hallstatt Plateau' and the increasing discrepancies between C-14 dates and historically datable sites in the Middle East as one goes further and further back in time, are causing considerable consternation in the archeological community.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Yes, OK, but the problem is, the other dating reasons they use could also be wrong.

After some reading and rereading of it, with calculations leading to a discrepancy between (purported?) historic dates 665 and 595 BC:

Hans-Georg Lundahl

on Baumgardner's wall

Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/baumgardner-gave-title-i-found-link.html

[technically first comment under I:] Would you mind taking a look on the problem?

My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/my-tables-end-in-real-year-1032-1028-bc.html

And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/and-what-about-lowering-of-carbon-14.html

I

John Baumgardner

Hans-Georg, To me it seems clear that something unusual is going on during that interval. My conjecture is that it has to do with the atmospheric C-14 production rate, that it was for some reason higher than average early in the interval and then decreased back toward the average value, say, averaged over the past 2500 years. What might have been responsible for a higher flux of high-energy particles entering the atmosphere during that time? I do not have any firm ideas as to the answer to that question.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem is not the overall scheme in the interval (760 - 450 BC), to me it is a question of pmC sinking by normal decay not compensated by any new production reaching down that low in the atmosphere.

The problem is where the level drops (and the radiocarbon years peak) faster than the atmospheric sample would decay between 665 and 595 BC.

It seems you are confusing production rate and level, whenever a production rate gets normal, it takes time for the level to sink down. Why did it sink faster?

Can 70 years be a question of simple mixture fluctuations?

As to where I think you go wrong in general terms, I think you are comparing 100 pmC to a "stable equilibrium point" to which everything automatically returns as quickly as possible as soon as contrary influences are done away with. For definition of the term:

Gömböc—The Shape That Shouldn't Exist
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvVF5QWSYF4

But 100 pmC is the unstable result of two in and of themselves opposed "forces", with no fixed value either of them.

The one pushing down is "decay" and you have not answered why pmC sank quicker than decay speed.

Have any idea particularly on that one?

John Baumgardner

Just as 11 years of atmospheric thermonuclear testing caused a jump in the atmospheric C-14 level, which then began to decay away, something like a relatively nearby supernova would do something similar and would yield what would appear to be anomalously younger C-14 ages in the organisms that died after that event, with the anomaly decreasing with time afterward. Let me emphasize that this supernova explanation is rank speculation on my part, but it serves to illustrate the sort of cause which seems to be needed.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

"a jump in the atmospheric C-14 level, which then began to decay away,"

But was the decay rate normal or accelerated?

How the pcM gets up quickly (with radiocarbon years going down) is not the problem. I am most fully aware extra radioactivity can get it up. The problem is, can it decay faster?

John Baumgardner

I was assuming a decay rate like we measure for C-14 today. Why would it need to be faster?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

If we go from 102.016 pmC to 100.061 it is a decay as from 100 to 98.084.

If we go from 101.113 pmC to 99.142 it is a decay rate as from 100 to 98.051.

BUT in 70 we would normally go from 100 to 99.157.

So, going "from 100 to 98.084 / 98.051" is faster than normal.

It means like going from 100 to 20.5 in 5730 years.

What caused the more than double speed of decay?

The two different versions are due to my hesitation if "years bp" was expressed in Cambridge halflife or still in a Libby halflife needing to recalculate the numbers by 1.03 for Cambridge.

Either way, the stretch from 665 to 595 BC averages a decay twice as fast as normal.

Hans-Georg Lundahl

I can see three main solutions.

• a) faster decay - but adding radioactivity should also make lots of new carbon 14 isotopes, see the article "Carbon dating into the future", right? Net phenomenon would be more C14, not less.
• b) mixture phenomenon - while all of the period 760 to 450 averages a decay with no compensating production, 665 to 595 you get admixture from parts of the air which have been decaying their C14 for longer without receiving new production - but can air parts be that separate from each other in the atmosphere for 95 years or more?
• c) while the tested objects have the carbon dates they have, some of their real dates could be somewhat misassigned.
  
  Even for back in Our Lord's time, when Rome was vaster and better organised, Our Lord's nativity was in 1498 assigned to "Hebdomada sexagesima tertia, juxta Danielis prophetiam, scilicet anno quadringentesimo quadragesimo vel circa." (63:rd week of Daniel) and now it is 65th week of Daniel.
  
  And Daniel's weeks start just after this period.
  
  
• d) - a subset of b : natural gas leaked or petrol was used very massively in oil lamps over the period.

You did get how I had calculated it, right? It was stated in the text in the second link on this thread?

II

Brian James Kyle*

Perhaps nuclear decay on the earth could be a source for increased C14?

Hans-Georg Lundahl

The problem was not INCREASED C14, but DECREASED, more rapidly than normal decay rate.

If you didn't see how I calculated a decrease more than normal decay rate, read my links again, please.

Esp. this one:

And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level?
https://creavsevolu.blogspot.com/2020/10/and-what-about-lowering-of-carbon-14.html

* not shortening name, since his page says

Canadian Economic Security & Stimulus Initiative
Founder & Chief Visionary Officer · Décembre 2016 à aujourd’hui · Victoria (Colombie-Britannique)
http://www.briankyle.ca/

In other words, a known person.