What Would Carbon Buildup, from Scratch, Normal Speed, Look Like?

Assorted retorts from yahoo boards and elsewhere : Answering HolyKoolaid on Babel, part I · Creation vs. Evolution : "the consensus, based on tree ring and coral calibration" - Means What? · What Would Carbon Buildup, from Scratch, Normal Speed, Look Like? · How Long is a Halflife, Then?

Here is what would happen. Each half life would have parallel decay and buildup, except the first, where 0 pmC cannot decay.

Normal speed of carbon 14 production is making up for normal speed of decay. As in normal speed of decay 100 pmC decay to 50 pmC, the buildup is theoretically 0 to 50 pmC.

I
Decay		0		0
Build up		0		50
Total		0		50
II
Decay		50		25
Build up		0		50
Total		50		75
III
Decay		75		37.5
Build up		0		50
Total		75		87.5
IV
Decay		87.5		43.75
Build up		0		50
Total		87.5		93.75
V
Decay		93.75		46.875
Build up		0		50
Total		93.75		96.875
VI
Decay		96.875		48.4375
Build up		0		50
Total		96.875		98.4375

So, yes, my tables do imply carbon production was once (I'd say between Flood and Exodus) radically faster than these days. From 1620 to 1720, you have a buildup 2.565 times the modern production and you have so called Little Ice Age.

950 to 1250, you have Medieval Warm Period. In 950, uncalibrated carbon years are 1150 (150 years too old, since BP = before 1950), in 1250, they are 800 (100 years too old). You have a build up there too, but it seems the warm period was not warm all over the world. 98.202 pmC * 96.436 / 100 = 94.702 pmC. 98.798 - 94.702 = 4.096 pmC. Normal compensation during 300 years, 100 - 96.436 = 3.564 pmC. 4.096 / 3.564 = 1.149 times faster than normal. So, there is some correlation between how fast carbon 14 is produced and how cold it is.

It is not unreasonable to suppose the actual Ice Age depended in part on a similar phenomenon./HGL