Ken Wolgemuth, Part III

In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon · Ken Wolgemuth, Part III · Ken Wolgemuth part IV

The item In Response to Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon comprises his parts I and II, this is a post comprising his part III, and his part IV is already out, I have already responded, I'm leaving room for debate before publishing up to 29.XI.

Ken Wolgemuth

"Contributeur en vogue"

11.XI.2024

If you are following my series on Radiocarbon Dating, this post explains how we verify that criteria or assumptions are tested. Please remember that the graph with the red line of C-14 pMC means that German Oak trees were growing in Europe 13,000 to 14,000 years

Creation’s Story – Geology – by Dr. Ken Wolgemuth
Radiocarbon Dating: Testing Assumptions: C-14–Part 3
There are several criteria or assumptions that must be evaluated to compile the calibration curve that will be as scientifically sound as possible. It is well known that some species of trees grow more than one ring per year. The conventional model assumes (1) carbon-14 decay rate has been constant, (2) sampled trees grew one ring per year, (3) cross-dating of the tree rings was done correctly, (4) terrestrial tree rings are free of “pre-aged” carbon, and (5) variations in the atmospheric production of carbon-14 over the 50,000 years was limited within a discernable range.
If you can find it, please review Part 2 for understanding Cross-Dating. The sequence is on my FB professional page with my picture.

Images

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1136095435192441&set=pcb.1136098301858821

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=1136095471859104&set=pcb.1136098301858821

I

Hans-Georg Lundahl

Meilleur contributeur

Geochemists have data from radioactive beryllium-10 that is also produced by Cosmic Rays and has a half-life of 1.4 million years.
...
From that data, there was a slightly lower production in the recent past, about 95 %, and a significantly higher production back in time, reaching a rate of 185 % of today's production.

If you pretend that for 1000 years beryllium production was 95 % and the time span was really 200 years, that would have made the beryllium production actually 475 % instead of 95 %.

If trees grew many rings per year, real data would fall above the blue lines.

Obtained by vitiated view on how the carbon 14 level was checked?

Also, my views on tree rings involve circularity due to smaller and rarer fragments being less and less easy to check independently of C-14.

If the half-life of C-14 were faster in the past ...

Not my position. Not every YEC view on C-14 is Setterfieldian.

Or there was less C-14 produced, real data would fall below the blue lines.

Also not my position.

For carbon dates 50 000 to c. 23 000 BP, I'd say pmC had slower additions than now. But from 23 000 BP to 1180 BC, pmC had higher additions than now, and that's how carbon 14 levels were RISING quicker than in 30 000 years to 100 pmC (with vaccillation).

Suppose there was an error in matching the tree rings of two diffent trees, so that the overlap did not match the same years of growth?

Indeed.

Then the quantity of C-14 in those rings would be different, as in the left diagram.

Ah, this presupposes a) a roughly speaking stable level of C-14 (what if a tree ring sample from 450 BC-ish were matched with one from 750 BC-ish, with carbon 14 pointing to 550 BC? Check Hallstadt Plateau), b) that all the relevant matches have been cross-checked by carbon dating, c) that the carbon 14 level has never sufficiently been for instance elevated due to contamination.

And, given where Germany is today, Hohenheim being in Germany, that all the checks have been made with no frauds.

II

Hans-Georg Lundahl

To clarify, my position explaining inflated carbon dates is not identic to that of for instance Mark Harwood.

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere: It Seems My Rivals on CMI Like to Censor Me
https://assortedretorts.blogspot.com/2024/11/it-seems-my-rivals-on-cmi-like-to.html