With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS: Radiocarbon and Tree Rings with Ken Wolgemuth · Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl: With Ken Wolgemuth on Carbon Dating and its Calibration

wed 13.IX.2023 22:30

Ken Wolgemuth

Hello Hans-Georg,
Here is our paper about Lake Suigetsu.

thu 14.IX.2023

Holy Cross

12:07

HGL

ok, where

14:29

Ken

Oops. Sorry about that.

[attached, but can apparently not be shared by a url accessible to the public here?]

Were you able to download it? Please note that this describes the foundations of radiocarbon dating, and hiccups of understanding by young earth creationists. This does not have the calibration curve used by the radiocarbon research community.

20:59

HGL

ok, I just found it

21:16

Ken Wolgemuth

Good. I understand from your profile that you live in Paris, and are from Switzerland. Is that correct? What is your viewpoint about how these American young-earth creationists handle this geochemistry data?

I see a reference to a paper that gives "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kya B.P. Are you the type of person who wants to pursue these questions about creation to find the truth?

21:42

HGL

I don't know where you get Switzerland from, unless Sweden and Switzerland are synonyms to you.

Or Austria and Switzerland. I am a Swedish national, and I was born in Austria.

Now, I have started my refutation of your article, it's a bit long for an answer here, I'll make it several answers instead.

HGL

The primary requirements for determining age are (1) a constant radioactive decay rate, (2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content, and (3) quantification of any old carbon that may have been incorporated into the specimen. The last requirement applies mostly to marine samples, in which oceandwelling organisms, even today, extract carbon from seawater that has been “pre-aged” by long isolation from the atmosphere.4 Terrestrial samples, such as tree rings and lake sediments, are less susceptible to this complicating factor, limiting the primary requirements to the first two.

The reservoir effect can also apply to men, who have eaten lots of marine food, or drunk water with lots of old calcium (which isn't the pure element, but involves carbon).

In fact, when it comes to Mladec cave people dating back too close to the flood for it to be believable so many so big people had died, I rely on the reservoir effect, there is chalk in those caves.

As you mentioned "(2) knowledge of the original carbon-14 content," this is where I differ from both you and CMI, or most of them, I think that barring reservoir effect and contamination, the C14 content can be known very well year by year between Flood and Fall of Troy, and was radically rising (1.625 to 100 pmC in 1772 years).

To turn a measured carbon-14 value into an age, independent methods are employed to first provide realistic assessments of past atmospheric production rates.

Mine is Biblical chronology.

The conventional geologic model gives us specific expected outcomes for how much carbon-14 should be present in tree rings or varves of particular ages. This is a natural outgrowth of assuming constant radioactive decay rates, and annual production of tree rings and varves. The young-earth model (also known as flood geology), in contrast, does not have any inherent expectations, for purported fluctuations in natural processes during and after the flood could produce virtually any outcome.

Mine are:

• bigger atmosphere with lower percentage of nitrogen before the Flood (part of the oxygen was reacting with high layer atmosphere hydrogen to form Flood water), and probably also lower incoming cosmic radiation, even than now;
• possibly also more carbon dioxyde in the pre-flood world, as pmC is a value in relation to the overall (atmospheric, especially) carbon content
• just after the Flood, when the atmosphere had been reduced, a much higher production rate, than now, through higher incoming radiation, producing:
  • 1) 10 times faster production of C14
  • 2) lowered lifespans
  • 3) cooler weather, resulting in the ice age.

For the conventional model, the plot will assume (1) carbon-14 decay rates have been constant, (2) sampled trees grew one ring per year, (3) cross-dating of tree rings was done correctly, (4) sampled sediment layers are varves (one per year), (5) terrestrial tree rings and varves are free of “pre-aged” carbon, and (6) variation in atmospheric production of carbon-14 over the period of interest was limited within a discernable range.

We generally presume, the further back you go, the likelier it its, that cross-dating was done incorrectly and enters into a de facto circular proof along with C14.

Also, varves are usually laminations. How fast supersaturated water flows will determine if these form.

One way to establish these limits is using beryllium-10 concentrations in sediments that contain carbon-14 above background levels.

My model does not presume carbon-14 was present ABOVE background levels, but BELOW them.

Beryllium-10 is also produced in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, but unlike carbon, it readily falls to the ground, potentially preserving a record of variations in cosmic flux. From this record of flux, we can calculate proportional carbon-14 production.

Exactly how is unclear. Recall my model.

• 1) starts out with radically LOWER carbon-14
• 2) presumably the higher production of carbon-14 would involve a higher production of beryllium-10
• 3) BUT this would be interpreted over a stretched out chronology, since the higher production of carbon-14 results in a drawn out carbon chronology.

E. g. if between 2607 BC (death of Noah) and 2556 BC (birth of Peleg) carbon 14 rose from 43 to 49 pmC, this means that the 51 real years are interpreted as a stretch of 1000 years, since the extra years diminish as carbon-14 goes up, from 7000 extra years to 6000 extra years.

This means, if ten times more beryllium-10 is produced during the actual stretch of 51 years, it is to "the observer" spread out over a 20 times longer period, namely 1000 years.

In general, however, the lower concentrations (lower flux) tend to be found in layers containing higher current carbon-14 (deposited in the recent past), and the highest concentrations (higher flux) tend to be in layers containing lower current carbon-14 (deposited in the more distant past).

I'd expect exactly the same things from my model.

40 000 - 10 000 BP, a higher concentration, supposing beryllium-10 produces more in proportion to cosmic rays than carbon-14.

10 000 - 5 500 BP, a medium high concentration.

5 500 BP to 3 500 BP, lowering down to today's concentration.

Given conventional expectations, even if atmospheric carbon-14 was double today’s level, the low carbon-14 samples should be on the order of 50,000 years.14

But the problem with this reasoning is, my model presupposes exactly NO higher concentration of carbon-14 in the atmosphere. It only goes up from 1.625 to 100 pmC, not higher or significantly.

For the lower boundary, we will start at 95 pMC to accommodate lower rates in the recent past, and allow it to increase linearly to 120 pMC.15

95 pmC was reached and slightly bypassed in the year 1610 BC, which is therefore dated as 2020 BC.

It's in my table V-VI, which starts out with 87.575 pmC in 1700, and ends in 97.0681 pmC in 1588.

1700 - 1588 = 112 years, normal decay 98.654 % and normal replacement 100-98.654 pmC, i e 1.346 pmC.

98.654 * 87.575 = 86.3962405 pmC remaining
97.0681 - 86.3962405 = 10.6718595 pmC actual replacement
10.6718595 / 1.346 = 7.9285731797919762 times FASTER production

We are then ready to apply the radioactive decay equation (2) to each point along the upper and lower boundary to determine how much carbon-14 should still be present today for a sample of a particular age, up to 50,000 years.

I think these blogposts of mine (the one linked to and the ones it links to) are doing the corresponding type of work for YEC:

New blog on the kid : Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci?
http://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2017/02/raffiner-et-finir-ma-table-de-fibonacci.html

[1.) 50% du "carbone récent", quel âge? Si on divisait une demi-vie en "demi-notes" ....? · 2.) 25% du "carbone récent"? Divisons la distance en 48 parties? · 3.) Trêve de Maths pour l'instant : a-t-on des restes antédiluviennes d'Européens ou non? · 4.) 12,5% du carbone présent : au paléolithique tardif · 5.) Encore "plus bas" dans le paléolithique : 6,25 % restent · 6.) Paléolithique inférieur, alors? · 7.) Raffiner et finir ma table de Fibonacci? · 8.) Table modifiée, analysée par convergence avec l'a priori]

As you are now going on to step 2, I propose a pause so you can have time to defend your step one, against my alternative reading, is that OK?

Ken Wolgemuth

It was obviously my mistake about your nationality.

When you are going into this detail, I would prefer email for east of printing to read. My email is [omitted]

I have identified a paper with this title: "A Complete Terrestrial Radiocarbon Record for 11.2 to 52.8 kya B.P." Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?
Ken

HGL

Mistakes happen, I'll be back on your mail.

But as it is your turn to respond in defense of previous, you get my email first, it's hgl@dr.com* ...

"Do you read this type of geochemistry papers?"

I haven't read that one, and am not sure yet whether it's the kind of thing I can read or not. We'll see.

* note:

it is my official public correspondence email.

Correspondence of Hans Georg Lundahl — If you wish to correspond with me
http://correspondentia-ioannis-georgii.blogspot.com/p/if-you-wish-to-correspond-with-me.html

HGL

one more thing, as I am sharing this debate with the public, I'd like to share the pdf with them, is that possible?

22:20

Ken Wolgemuth

Yes, of course.

23:36

HGL

the problem is, I don't have a functioning url for sharing it?