Dating news

Judith Curry

Climate scientist Judith Curry has produced a new study that has been published at and basically she says that computer predictions of climate claims are flawed - fundamentally. Most people have intuitively understood this - without a climate scientist telling them. Now it is explained in easy language by a scientist well versed in how the climate works, the author and co-author of many papers on climate, and a university lecturer on the subject to boot.

radioisotope dating

At ... a paper by RB Hayes of North Carolina State University in Nuclear Technology (2017) claims there is a flaw in the radio-isotope dating technique which is used to pin down the age of rocks. The university news blurb does not give much away but it can be detrimental to uniformitarian geochronology or there would have been gnashing of teeth. It's all to do with the rate of differential mass diffusion. The calculations appear to be slightly awry.

Chauvet Pont D'arc

At ... and ... we have a story about dating the cave art, a head scratching affair. The cave is situated in southern France and is a World Heritage Site. It's walls are decorated with hand prints and drawing of 14 different species of animal - and charcoal from the embers of camp fires in the cave were used to draw some of them. These include bears, horses, woolly rhinoceros, and various big cats.

Tree rings and C14

At ... purports to show that C14 dates prior to 600AD are unreliable as a result of a cosmci event. The detail is missing and one is referred to various earlier posts on revising AD chronology he has made. It would be extremely interesting if C4 diverged from the tree ring graph - even if it was not to the extent he envisages. Somebody else might like to explore the issue.

C14 found wanting

At ... which is the South China Morning Post, apparently read at times by Andrew - see ... and concerns a paper in Earth and Planetary Science Letters which argues C14 dating is not all it is cracked up to be. C14 dating is unreliable in context as far as global warming studies are concerned - at dates older than 30,000 years ago.

cave lion

At ... accelerator mass spectrometry has been used by Russian biologists to date the remains of a cave lion that had been preserved in permafrost conditions. The remains included fossilised bone, claw and hair. The bones weighed in at 61,000 years ago but carbon extracted from animal hair was dated only 28,700 years ago. It is suggested the different dates arise because of contaminants in the fur of the animal. Obviously, they don't like the lower date - but why?

C14 dating oddity

Bob Porter over at the New Chronology Yahoo group has written that C14 dates from Thebes differ from those of the same period taken from Tell ed-Dab'a - by as much as a century. One theory being advanced is that delta water contains more older carbon than the Nile near Thebes (but plants are supposed to absorb C14 from the atmosphere). We seem to have something that might be explained by C14 samples being analysed at different laboratories - which would have to be explained in more detail.

pinning down the mammoths

At oths-alive-thought.html .... it seems mammoths may not have gone extinct in the Late Pleistocene (Younger Dryas Boundary) after all. Pockets of them may have survived in ecologically favourable areas of Alaska - and elsewhere (according to DNA extracted from frozen soil in permafrost).

The DNA of horses (that also went extinct in N America) as well as mammoth was locked in an ice and frozen soil - so how  did these herbivores survive?

different ways of dating things

An interesting development at ... the Isthmus of Panama formed between 17 and 15 million years ago rather than 3 million years ago, according to research published in the journal Science that used a novel way of dating zircon in rocks (April 12th, see The new dates are roughly contemporary with the time it is thought an ice cap fetched up on the Antarctic continent.

new C14 technique

At .... we are informed archaeologists will be able to get dating results quicker and cheaper which will be a massive boon. At the moment c14 dating is so expensive only a few sample are ever properly dated - unless the archaeology budget has big money as a back-up. The new technique can also be used on site - without being sent to a laboratory (and having to wait for weeks to get the reply).