This article has been making some rounds on the ‘net due to a Slashdot posting.
The noise is along the lines of “Scientists prove carbon dating has errors therefore all carbon dating is fallacious!!” Let’s be clear: The inconsistencies identified by the source paper indicate errors on time-scales of 10 MILLION (that’s a thousand thousand) years.
I won’t attempt to pull a one-liner out of context from the paper to prove my point, instead I’ll emphasize a few words from the paper’s abstract.
The carbon isotopic (δ13C) composition of bulk carbonate sediments deposited off the margins of four carbonate platforms/ramp systems (Bahamas, Maldives, Queensland Plateau, and Great Australian Bight) show synchronous changes over the past 0 to 10 million years. However, these variations are different from the established global pattern in the δ13C measured in the open oceans over the same time period. For example, from 10 Ma to the present, the δ13C of open oceanic carbonate has decreased, whereas platform margin sediments analyzed here show an increase. It is suggested that the δ13C patterns in the marginal platform deposits are produced through admixing of aragonite-rich sediments, which have relatively positive δ13C values, with pelagic materials, which have lower δ13C values. As the more isotopically positive shallow-water carbonate sediments are only produced when the platforms are flooded, there is a connection between changes in global sea level and the δ13C of sediments in marginal settings. These data indicate that globally synchronous changes in δ13C can take place that are completely unrelated to variations in the global carbon cycle. Fluctuations in the δ13C of carbonate sediments measured during previous geological periods may also be subject to similar processes, and global synchroniety of δ13C can no longer necessarily be considered an indicator that such changes are related to, or caused by, variations in the burial of organic carbon. Inferences regarding the interpretation of changes in the cycling of organic carbon derived from δ13C records should be reconsidered in light of the findings presented here.
So yes, dates based on carbon dating may be wrong, but the only way this error can be identified is by looking at patterns that took 10 MILLION YEARS to occur.
September 16th, 2008 at 7:27 am
Carbon Dating recalibration…
As I understand things, even if it takes 10 million years to create the pattern that allows me to identify an error, it is still an error. Perhaps we are off by 100 years, perhaps by 100 million years, but when the article says that what was thought t…
September 16th, 2008 at 11:45 am
For convenience, I have included the remainder of Luke’s response since he has cross posted from his own blog:
First off, ground rules: I won’t pursue this if it’s going to get heated or personal, because you’re family and I’m willing to agree to disagree on this, but since you replied, I will take your points one at a time:
“As I understand things, even if it takes 10 million years to create the pattern that allows me to identify an error, it is still an error”
True, an error exists. Science is always imperfect, but rarely is it flat out wrong. My point is that to even be able to accept that this error exists, you have to take for granted that the sedimentary deposition of the carbon platforms occurred over a 10 million year period. This is the baseline by which the inconsistency is observed.
“what was thought to be constant for the globe now has localized variations” Actually, I don’t think any claim was made that this was constant for the globe, the term “synchronized” is used, implying that these disparate carbon ramps have similar carbon ratio patterns (I can’t be sure without the full article and $10 is above my curiousity threshold).
“I think I am perfectly justified in saying that we do not know how old things are.” This is where we disagree. Without the article I can’t be certain, but I’m fairly sure that we’re looking at a change in percentage terms, not orders of magnitude.
““I do not know” is a whole lot better than “I am going to believe something I know to be untrue just because you cannot offer a better theory” in my book.” There is a difference between “untrue” and “imperfect”. I’m betting your understanding of quantum particle physics is “imperfect” (as is mine!), but both of us rely on the results of this science every day. I might even go so far as to say that we “believe” that the transistors in our computers will work the same way every time an instruction is executed. I would beshocked to learn that the world’s current understanding of electron quantum behavior is perfect. However, the imperfections are such that they have no practical bearing on the result. So, are computers “untrue” or “imperfect”? Are the dates 10 million or 1 million? Does it matter when compared to 6000 years?
In the case of carbon ratios, we may find that all dates have to be thrown to the wind, but I wouldn’t bet on it. (That’s assuming that this paper even makes claims that have precision impacts approaching 100%.) It will take a body of evidence on par with the body of evidence supporting the theory to supplant it. Theories are replaced every day, and it’s exciting to know that the scientific process supports change.
Feel free to comment right on the blog, no registration is required and I’ve never trashed a legitimate (not spam or selling something) comment.
September 17th, 2008 at 11:51 am
I just ordered a copy of the paper through interlibrary loan. This discussion is in my field. I’m curious.
I’ll pass it on when I get it.
September 17th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
Thanks Kim. A little birdie already forwarded me a copy which I had a chance to read through. Although this is very much NOT in my field, I convinced myself that the paper has virtually nothing to do with dating ancient things. Instead, it seems to be about using ancient things to predict geologic changes in carbon absorption/deposition. It is the analysis of these processes that the authors are claiming might need to be reviewed in light of their analysis. They make no claims (that I can decipher) that any of the dates are wrong.
Let me know what your summary.