Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link

Creation vs. Evolution : Article and Details, Please? · Baumgardner Gave the Title, I Found the Link · My Tables End In Real Year 1032 (1028) BC, Dated As 940 · And What About the Lowering of Carbon 14 Level? · HGL'S F.B. WRITINGS : Interaction with John Baumgardner

High-Precision Decadal Calibration of the Radiocarbon Time Scale, AD 1950–6000 BC
Minze Stuiver (a1) and Bernd Becker (a2)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/highprecision-decadal-calibration-of-the-radiocarbon-time-scale-ad-19506000-bc/F1AB60097B0184501418D3EAEAD2EA90

While published online 2016, it is from a publication back in 1993.

It seems, oddly enough, from diagrams (there is a pdf in the link, look them up yourself), both just before 1800 AD and the peak at 1950 AD show a radiocarbon age of 200 years Before Present.

Now, back to the diagrams and back in time in them.

At 450 BC, we are at 2500 yr bp. 100 years too old. By 330 BC, we are at 2180 yr bp, which is 100 years too young. This is a very steep "fall" in the diagram.

And, the line ("curve") in the diagram first hit "2500 yr bp" line in 760 BC, 210 years too young.

Let us assume this is already dealing with Cambridge, this would tell us, the atmosphere more than once had more than 100 pmC:

1950-2500 = -550 (100 years too old)
1950-2180 = -230 (100 years too young)
1950-2500 = -550 (210 years too young)

Now, assume instead this is Libby, I'll have to convert to Cambridge ages: 2575, 2245.4.

1950-2575 = -625 (175 years too old)
1950-2245.4 = -295.4 (34.6 years too young)
1950-2575 = -625 (135 years too young)

So, by 760, carbon level was above 100 pmC, significantly. Which a temple from 1032 misdated to 940 (on my view, see older tables) would tend to predict./HGL