Problems with Radiometric Dating?

From 1965. And the statement here is tempered at several other spots in the piece, which is an informal synopsis of a conference. The next sentence in that abstract is "Caution is urged in applying dates from deep-ocean basalts in studies on ocean-floor spreading." This one's from 1968, as well.Science, Vol.157, p.726 (1967) Just before the bit mined in your source, this says "It is well established that the ages obtained on the assumption of constant, initial concentrations of radiocarbon in the specimens can differ by several hundreds of years for historical and dendrochronological dates for several periods over the last 6000 years." The report goes on to talk about early (1967!!) work toward calibration to account for these known fluctuations.Quote mines? Yup. From near-antique material, too. Whoever compiled them should be ashamed.

Back to 1880, in fact! But they are all pdf's so they are something of a pain to copy portions of - download, take to Wordpad, then get excerpts. At least I don't know a quicker way...

Aha! I'm still on 6.??. I'll upgrade. Tnx.

Done, to the #8 address.

I got a "could not deliver" message back. It's only two pages.Go to my profile and email me another address - I may have it, but I'm getting too scatterbrained to know.

In the case of carbon-14, there are a bunch in addition to tree rings from several sites: annual varves in lake bottoms and in the seafloor, annual layers in ice in Greenland, Antarctica, and on top of most of the high mountain ranges in the world, uranium-thorium dating on corals and on stalagmites....and they all match up pretty nicely, showing the "wiggles" one would expect from the variations in Earth's changing tilt and orbital variations. It's pretty interesting stuff.Oh....and radiocarbon dating is useful anywhere you find old carbon. That's a LOT more places than you can find stalagmites.Edited by Coragyps, : No reason given.