Did you know climate change has screwed carbon dating after this date?

[OddBeMe]

Because we so screwed up the carbon atmosphere we can't carbon date anything after the 50s.

[abc3643]

I wouldn't worry about it for three reasons.

1. It's not really important to carbon date anything since 1950 and likely going forward. Mathematically, carbon dating would be better for significantly older (but not too older) dead things. This is because, if it's not dead long enough (a very short time compared to the half-life of C14), your going to get some error in your measurements because you can't measure with the precision needed. Similarly, if it's been dead too long (more than about 8 or 9 half-lives; 1 hal-life is about 5730 years), you won't have enough left for an accurate measurement.

This from Google Gemini:

The effective date range for carbon-14 dating is from about a few hundred years ago to around 50,000 years ago.

Here's why:

* Half-life: Carbon-14 has a half-life of approximately 5,730 years. This means that after that amount of time, half of the carbon-14 in a sample will have decayed. After another 5,730 years, half of the remaining carbon-14 will have decayed, and so on.
* Detection limits: After about 50,000 years, so little carbon-14 remains in a sample that it becomes very difficult to accurately measure. This sets the upper limit for the technique.
* Modern era limitations: On the other end of the spectrum, carbon-14 dating is less effective for very recent samples (within a few hundred years). This is because the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has fluctuated in recent times due to factors like industrial activity and nuclear testing, making it harder to establish an accurate baseline.

Therefore, while carbon-14 dating is a powerful tool for dating organic materials, it is most effective for samples that are between a few hundred and 50,000 years old.

2. Since we pretty much record everything now, we likely won't need to date things in the same way anymore.

3. We'll be long dead before anyone would carbon date remains from our time anyway.

[OddBeMe]

Kinda missing the point

[abc3643]

Not really. The point that you are trying to make is a bit moot; that was MY point.

[goaded]

It isn't needed now, but it won't work for future archaeologists.

upload.wikimedia.org/.../Potaending.jpg

[abc3643]

@goaded actually it might. Scientists have recognize the variability of carbon dioxide concentrations of the atmosphere over the years so that the basic assumption about the steady state of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere doesn't hold. However, they have an alternative method that helps them calibrate that. For instance, tree rings who's growth rate is affected by atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations.

[bolverk]

I take that you are referring to;
As carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen over the past century or more, the ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 has fallen, which means that the source of the extra carbon dioxide must be enriched in "light" carbon-12. Meanwhile, the relative amount of carbon-14—radioactive carbon—has declined. The record of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is complicated by nuclear bomb testing after 1950, which doubled the amount of radioactive carbon in the atmosphere. After the nuclear test ban treaty in 1963, the excess atmospheric carbon-14 began to decline as it dispersed into the oceans and the land biosphere.
In the last four decades, however, the decline of carbon-14 has been noticeably faster than can be explained by continuing dispersal of the bomb-related carbon-14. This faster decline is driven by the addition to the atmosphere of huge amounts of carbon dioxide from a source with no carbon-14. As this carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere, it dilutes the ratio of 14-carbon dioxide (i. e., carbon dioxide containing a carbon-14 atom) to total carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
Taken together, then, we are looking for a source of carbon dioxide that comes from terrestrial plants (because they are depleted in "heavy" carbon-13), is so old that any carbon-14 it once contained has decayed to non-detectable levels, and is capable of creating a pulse of carbon dioxide that is larger and faster than anything that’s occurred in at least the past million years. Only fossil fuels meet all those criteria.
?

[msmissydc]

As far as I know it doesn't change older things. So you couldnt carbon date something newer than 1950 but generally that is not done anyway.
Also as far as I understoood my quick research its not about climate but about isotope C^14 which was released in massive amounts during nuclear bomb testing.

[NoDecision]

Yet they still are doing it. I think it was all a hunk of hooey to begin with though. I've heard of them carbon dating a newly made item and it said it was 1,000 years old.

[OddBeMe]

Well the carbon in it could be 1000 years old. Just not a Norse pissing bowl

[goaded]

I think that was nuclear testing, not global warming. Something to do with the proportions of isotopes of carbon (in living things?).

[OddBeMe]

According to the articles the carbon is so deluded after 1950 the testing can't be trusted.

[Astarlessnightsky]

No, the atomic bomb has screwed carbon dating. Too mich radiation in the atmosphere to take exact measurements.

[OddBeMe]

You think nukes had more affect on the climate than global warming?

[goaded]

They had more effect on radiation.

[Astarlessnightsky]

@OddBeMe no the bomb had an effect on the global radiation levels. Thats how carbon dating works, you measuere the amount of radiation of the Carbon Isotopes, which becomes increasingly difficult if the background radiation acts as noise.

[dustybiker2]

Think of the bright side. We don't even have forty more years. We'll be nuked soon.

[Fireguy17]

boy there goes my weekend, thanks!
good thing there are people around that are still alive that can remember when things were from.
Maybe my weekend is safe after all.

[Sevenpointfive]

we're going to drill. more carbon is what we need. we're going to get that carbon out of here! and then we'll tax it.

[exitseven]

I guess its no big deal. We know when just about everything that was manufactured after 1950 was made. Most things have a serial number.

[Filthy_Immigrant]

you finally posted something that has nothing to do with Trump, Musk or the things you love bitching about in your life.

pigs are gonna fly tonight!

[Dargil]

I know you can explain the science behind that statement, can't you?

[DrPepper12]

Carbon is useless but there's other elements less corrupted.

[seeyounexttuesday]

Lmao. You’re full of carbon, time to delete yourself.

[Anonymous]

OMFG!

[jimmy2]

It a scam