Am I Wrong in Assuming a Stable C14 Level for Last Millennia?

Creation vs. Evolution Am I Wrong in Assuming a Stable C14 Level for Last Millennia? · So, What Are the Possible Solutions? · New blog on the kid : Assume Twice the Halflife ... · So, Doubling the Halflife and Assuming a Rising C14 Level Doesn't Fix It ...

My tables have presumed that since not just c. Birth of Christ, not just Babylonian Captivity, but even since Fall of Troy, carbon 14 levels have been mainly stable. These measured as the carbon 14 in relation to the much vaster amounts of carbon 12, and counted in relation to the modern level or rather pre-industrial level.

Between 1750 and 1950, the carbon years go in fact between 1950 and 1750, if I may say so. This would mean we have 100 pmC in samples from 1750 (or had 100 back in 1950, by now it would be 99.157 pmC) and that we had 97.61 pmC in samples from 1950. For 1850 we both got and expected in 1950 to get 98.798 pmC - what remains after 100 years from an original 100 pmC.

I am not making this up, it's from the Cambridge calibration:

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

W a i t ... I misread a bit. 1850 samples give a bit more than 100 years in carbon age. 1900 samples still give 100 years, then from 1910 to 1950 it rises to 200 carbon years.

I at least got it right that 1950 samples carbon date to 200 years before 1950, that is to 1750.

So, on average, from 1850 to 1950, the carbon age has not sunk from 100 to 0 carbon years, as the abstract theory would lend to predict, but risen from 115 to 200 carbon years.

And obviously, we can imagine that carbon emissions have sth to do with that. I remind you, carbon 14 levels are not measured as "so and so many tons of pure carbon 14 in the atmosphere" but as carbon 14 in relation to carbon 12. If fossil fuels are not 100 % (carbon 12 and whatever there is of carbon 13), zero carbon 14, as one could expect from "millions of years" the carbon 14 level is at least way lower than 100 pmC. This means carbon 14 gets more diluted the more fossil fuels you get into the atmosphere, hence lowered.

Now, a:b = 100, a:bx = 98.798? One can restate this as 100:1 = 100, 100:x = 98.798?

100 = 98.798*x, 100:98.798 = x?

1.01216623818 - meaning, carbon 12 should be 1.2 percent higher in 1950 than in 1850.

Here is a little thing, this seems to be false. See these CO2 levels?

1860 - 285 ppm
2020 - 410 ppm

Source:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvFTk42bPYg

But what about 1950?

1960 - 320 ppm

Source:
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide

So, 1860 - 1960 = 285 to 320 ppm.

What would 285 with an added 1.2 % be?

285 * 1.01216623818 = 288.4673778813
[288.4673778813 / 285 = 1.01216623818]

Ah, instead of 288.5 ppm we got 320 ...

320:285 = 1.12280701754

An increase of 12.3 %, not of 1.2 %!

How would this normally have affected the carbon 14 level?

100:1.12280701754 = 89.06250000031

1950 should therefore carbon date as 960, not as 200 carbon years ... so, why is it carbon dating as 200 and not 960 carbon years (back in 1950, that is)?

As I am tired, I'll leave off here, but my point is, one of the reasons could be a carbon 14 level still on the rise ... see you next time!

Hans Georg Lundahl
Paris
Conversion of St. Paul
25.I.2022

PS - all the science presented so far is main stream science and has not yet featured any consequences from or onto my calibration for BC years (you know, like 2957 carbon dated to 40 000 BP or 1935 to 3500), it is only about calibration as given and about pmC implications for time and about the "mathematics of dilution" and the rise of CO2 ... I have not yet started outlining the possible solutions, this is only the problem./HGL