Has the Carbon 14 Level Reached Stability?

In my own work, I say it has:

New blog on the kid: Examinons une hypothèse qui se trouve contrefactuelle un peu de près
Wednesday, 28 October 2015 | Posted by Hans Georg Lundahl at 13:26
https://nov9blogg9.blogspot.com/2015/10/examinons-une-hypothese-qui-se-trouve.html

My what-if was, given the carbon 14 level at the Deluge was 3/64 of what it is now (4.6875 pmC, 25 298 extra years, see below calculation A, based on a medium of a ballpark of 20 000 to 50 000 BP*), an evaluation I have changed since, and supposing carbon 14 had risen by always gaining as much as is produced in the corresponding timespans now (4.261 pmC gained each 360 years, while also losing by multiplication with 0.957 each such period, calculations B and C), we would have arrived by 2013 at 45,7 % of the present rate.

But as those 45,7 % would not be taken as 45,7 % of the present rate, given they are the present rate, the 45,7 % would be reinterpreted as 100 %, so 100 pmC.

If we consistently did that, and dated older items accordingly (actual rising C-14, so lower than expected), still using 5730 years as the halflife, we would get into absurdities, like boots from El Alamein dating to the Civil War. But on the other hand, if we corrected for known historic items, we would get halflives, like 2242 to 2832 years.

Against this, a man like Gavin Cox will refer* to a sentence in an article from originally 1979** that says:

Was the ¹⁴C entering and leaving the system at the same rate? In his day, the measurements and calculations, which he knew about, showed that ¹⁴C was entering the system some 12–20% faster than it was leaving.

From 1940 (when ¹⁴C was discovered) to 1979, there were 39 years, let's say 40. This would have given (see calculations E, F, G and H) a very slight increase, not the wildest fluctuation in known calibrations of radiocarbon.

I think my big picture calculation in the article I referred to trumps the small picture calculations that Carl Wieland back then referred to.

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
St Thomas Aquinas
6—7.III.2026
(after First Vespers)

In monasterio Fossae Novas, prope Tarracinam, in Campania, sancti Thomae Aquinatis, Confessoris et Ecclesiae Doctoris, ex Ordine Praedicatorum, nobilitate generis, vitae sanctitate et Theologiae scientia illustrissimi; quem Leo Papa Decimus tertius caelestem Scholarum omnium catholicarum Patronum declaravit.

Calculations

A) 5730 * log(0.046875) / log(0.5) = 25 298 extra years.
B) Decay of 360 years = 0.5^(360/5730) = multiply previous amount by 0.9573861063712243
C) Normal production in 360 years = 1 - 0.9573861063712243 = 0.0426138936287757, add 4.621 pmC each such period
D) Decay of 40 years = 0.5^(40/5730) = multiply previous amount by 0.9951729639914483
E) Normal production in 40 years = 1 - 0.9951729639914483 = 0.0048270360085517
F) Observed production lower limit = 1.12 * 0.0048270360085517 = 0.005406280329577904
G) Observed production higher limit = 1.2 * 0.0048270360085517 = 0.00579244321026204
H) Deduced observed rise, higher limit, if there had been no carbon emissions : 1 * 0.9951729639914483 + 0.00579244321026204 = 1.00096540720171034

* Feedback article:

Carbon dating—who is fooling whom?
By Gavin Cox | Published 08 Dec, 2018 | Updated 07 Nov, 2024
https://creation.com/en/articles/carbon-dating-fooling-whom

** Republished, but with caution of it's being outdated:

Carbon-14 dating—explained in everyday terms
By Dr Carl Wieland | [Re-] Published 27 Jan, 2006
https://creation.com/en/articles/carbon-14-dating-explained-in-everyday-terms