HomeОбразованиеRelated VideosMore From: SciShow

Why Carbon Dating Might Be in Danger

8612 ratings | 261950 views
SciShow viewers can get 2 free months of unlimited access to Skillshare by using this link: https://skl.sh/scishow16 Carbon dating transformed fields like archeology and paleontology, but its use might be in danger. Hosted by: Stefan Chin Head to https://scishowfinds.com/ for hand selected artifacts of the universe! ---------- Support SciShow by becoming a patron on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/scishow ---------- Dooblydoo thanks go to the following Patreon supporters: Lazarus G, Sam Lutfi, D.A. Noe, الخليفي سلطان, Piya Shedden, KatieMarie Magnone, Scott Satovsky Jr, Charles Southerland, Patrick D. Ashmore, charles george, Kevin Bealer, Chris Peters ---------- Looking for SciShow elsewhere on the internet? Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/scishow Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/scishow Tumblr: http://scishow.tumblr.com Instagram: http://instagram.com/thescishow ---------- Sources: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/carbon-dating-crucial-scientific-technique-jeopardy-thanks-our-pollution-heres-easy-way-fix-it-180961345/ http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/12/124016 http://science.sciencemag.org/content/122/3166/415.2 http://www.pnas.org/content/112/31/9542 https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/outreach/isotopes/stable.html https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/radiocarbon-dating.html https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/showing-their-age-62874/ https://geology.utah.gov/map-pub/survey-notes/glad-you-asked/glad-you-asked-how-do-geologists-know-how-old-a-rock-is/ https://www.jstor.org/stable/77628 https://wwwrcamnl.wr.usgs.gov/isoig/period/c_iig.html https://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~martins/isohydro/carbon1.html https://arxiv.org/pdf/1211.2814.pdf https://www.llnl.gov/news/atmospheric-carbon-14-measurements-reveal-natural-production-rate-cosmic-rays https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2015/07/global-warming-carbon-dating/399398/
Html code for embedding videos on your blog
Text Comments (1091)
SciShow (4 months ago)
SciShow viewers can get 2 free months of unlimited access to Skillshare by using this link: https://skl.sh/scishow16
Kit James (4 months ago)
Why is Quark from Deep Space 9 hosting this video?
BOISSENIN Adrien (4 months ago)
If carbon 13 is stable, and carbon 12 is the problem, why don't we use the ratio of c13 to c14 ?
shiny x (4 months ago)
using uranium rather than carbon. it has a lot longer half-life. except it's usually more complicated than that since fossils and sedimentary rock don't usually contain these isotopes so you have to find nearby igneous rock layers.They can also date things based on the presence of indicator species they know only lived during certain eras based on other fossils that have been dated.
FabianTheGreat (4 months ago)
Then, how are older things such as dinosaur bones dated?
Meek Peace (4 months ago)
Don't date carbon, she "bonds" with everything.
isaiah miracle (3 days ago)
when the earth loses atmospheric protection or irregularities occur in the earths electromagnetic protection could that have an effect on radio iostope dating
isaiah miracle (3 days ago)
how does the sun affect radioactive decay; in relation what would an influx of solar radiation do to affect the rate of decay of "certain isotopes"?
Kaleb Martin (4 days ago)
I didn't know Dr. Suess was into science.
Lirei Taichen (8 days ago)
I dont have a girlfriend... Maybe i should start dating carbon.
William Mills (14 days ago)
How can they count how many of a certain type of atom is in a "sample"?
Genessa (2 days ago)
Atomic spectroscopy and weight distribution usually
wade5941 (1 month ago)
LOL!! Our old friend climate change.
kennrhey miraflores (1 month ago)
Actually, the amount of carbon in the atmosphere has already changed long ago. And what happens now it just a repetition. It means that carbon dating was never accurate. Even in science history, there have been many times already in which global warming happened. And due to global warming, forest fires are created thereby producing also an insane amount of carbon emissions in the atmosphere long ago. It's just a cycle, never use carbon dating again for measurements which includes thousands of years, hundreds may still be closely applicable.
Genessa (2 days ago)
kennrhey miraflores carbon dating isn’t used for any sample older than 45,000 years old. For older samples different methods of dating are used like potassium argon or uranium dating. For carbon dating of things within its range, scientists use other forms of dating alongside it to make sure the two forms of dating match up and give an accurate date.
kennrhey miraflores (1 month ago)
The calibration that you mention only occured during the invention of carbon dating uptil now. And as you can see, you have no methods of calibrating it in the distant past especially if it occured billion of years ago (If it really is billions since carbon dating is inaccurate)
kennrhey miraflores (1 month ago)
Nope, they can't calibrate it since in different eras, different amount of carbon in the atmosphere is present and it could probably closely be graphed as a sine wave with respect to time. But the period in that time is unknown and and the graph is also erratic.
BezoomnyBratchny (1 month ago)
Carbon dating has been calibrated with various other methods at various points in history.
4d0lf (1 month ago)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wlNey9t7hQ
Sumbody Real (1 month ago)
so could a grand atmospheric catastrophe, like a super volcano or asteroid, make things seem older then they are?
Thomas Conrow (1 month ago)
You should check your facts on carbon in the atmosphere again. C-13 does not make up 1% of the atmosphere. All gases except nitrogen and oxygen make up 1% of the atmosphere.
Genessa (2 days ago)
He meant c-13 makes up 1% of the carbon in the atmosphere
You Hit My Car Abc (2 months ago)
That screenshot of the "prostitution'ious'" carbon burning plant, is actually releasing PURE steam. That huge cloud of "smoke" you see is just water. Don't be fooled by good pictures. Do reasearch. See how much actual pollution is being released by these plants before listening to some youtube lecturer.
YABBAHEY YABBAHEY (2 months ago)
In the future Anthropologists will be able to more accurately date human remains by tracing when they got herpes.
rgerber (2 months ago)
The dates could be poisonous
CastelDawn (3 months ago)
lol, he's fat as butter
Milo Bem (3 months ago)
I guess we need to switch to dating silicon.
augustosj (3 months ago)
considering how little C14 there must be in oil and coal (since it's so old), the amount we burn must be enormous to affect carbon dating so drastically in just 30 years.
Genessa (2 days ago)
That’s the entire point. There is almost no C-14 in coal and oil, so it has a disproportionate amount of C-12 which is what skews the numbers.
Ward Smith (3 months ago)
At the 3:24 mark he says carbon 13 "only" makes up 1% of the earth's atmosphere. Nice trick considering ALL CO2 only makes up 400 parts per million, or about 1/2500, let alone a rare isotope.
Genessa (2 days ago)
He meant C-13 makes up 1% of the carbon in the atmosphere oml
BASSCODE PROJECT (3 months ago)
So this probably the reason why some archeology video's on youtube that claim they found man made structures from say 100.000 to 300.000 years ago are wrong. they are not taking the Suess effect into consideration and are using incorrect methods when they calculate the age...
BezoomnyBratchny (2 months ago)
Carbon dating isn't used on anything that old. It's half life is only 5730 years so after 50,000 years or so, there isn't enough C14 left to get an accurate reading after factoring in potential AMS background noise.
Brett Wortham (3 months ago)
I'm sorry but I am very very suspicious of any research done when it implies we need to tone down our carbon emissions. Carbon is not a pollutant in this world! It is a natural reaccuring and very much needed life gas! It's food for plants! Plants grow massively better if in a highly concentrated carbon dioxide area. Prehistoricly carbon dioxide percentages were vastly massive too! Plants grow better and faster providing us animals more food and shelter and and oxygen. So I guess it just balances itself out. Look up all that stuff yourselves if you don't believe me. God bless!
Genessa (2 days ago)
Brett Wortham yes, earlier time periods have shown that when carbon dioxide increases in the atmosphere plants grow a lot more. But the earth also gets significantly warmer, which leads to mass extinction for the animals can’t handle such an intense change in temperature. The reason it’s so bad right now is that this warming is happening on a time scale of hundreds of years, not millions of years. The sudden change gives little time for animals to evolve and adapt, which means that more than half of the planet’s species will die off. This is a global extinction on the scales of which have only been seen a handful of times in the earths life.
SakraNomoko (3 months ago)
So the carbon ratio isn't always constant. Huh, who knew?
Hardy Williams (3 months ago)
Baby jebus will fix it.
Patrick Read (3 months ago)
I'm a nerd but; NERD!
realvanman1 (3 months ago)
But you carbon date by comparing the ratios of the sample to that of historic levels, not the current ratios. The extra C-12 in the atmosphere now would only effect someone's attempt at dating something from now, eons from now. There probably won't even be any humans at all by then!
L.A. November 2019 (3 months ago)
Carbon dating has never been accurate, & scientists know a lot less about our earth than people realize. Big egos and vested interests don't help either.
Hardy Williams (3 months ago)
You have no idea what you're saying. You know that, don't you?
Cobra85291 (3 months ago)
2:07 I like how they show a nuclear plant which dosnt produce carbon emission when talking about increasing carbon levels.
Karl Bergen (3 months ago)
In elements with more than on isotope the isotopic distribution will very from one sample to another. For this reason the atomic weights of vary from on sample to another. Sulfur has quite a bit of variation. In other cases this variation is smaller.
Dr ThoughtBot (3 months ago)
Wait isn’t it possible then that over the many years a fossil has been around, something or some event may have added carbon or carbon 14 to it, throwing the dating of fossils before this new issues off as well?
Genessa (2 days ago)
Dr ThoughtBot we don’t use carbon dating for anything above 50k years old. Uranium and potassium argon dating are the most common dating methods for older samples.
Alex Thompson (3 months ago)
The whole dating methods have problems. The main one is assumptions 1. Assuming the amount that was in there in the first place. 2. That the decay rate was consistent throughout. Also I think they have processes to get rid of contaminants
pierrecurie (3 months ago)
If C13 is stable, what happened to the C13 in the fossil fuels we're burning?
Brian Pridemore (3 months ago)
It's a conspiracy by the religious right.
J. A. E. (3 months ago)
The main problem with carbon dating is that it is assumed the ratio stays the same but obviously it changes
David Hugill (3 months ago)
Did you do any basic research before posting this tripe? As I see others have posted, C14 levels vary over time - especially affected by the early nuclear age atmospheric testing. But, whatever. All C14 studies work off a calibrated scale and take these things into account. So variations in the extant C14 levels don't put C14 dating "in danger" at all, as you try to imply. If you want to keep your channel's credibility, please refrain from this kind of tabloid sensationalism. Note, I didn't get past 2 min 8 sec in this video. Maybe you clarify things further on (I'll never know), but the headline scare is already out there - job done, you say.
Tzisorey Tigerwuf (3 months ago)
The Suess effect?From there to here, from here to there,Strange things exist everywhere. One isotope, Two isotope,Old isotope, New isotope,Red isotope, Blue isotope,
Ali Labeeb Alkoka (3 months ago)
Just go back to making up dates and times for things.
Wes Hartley (3 months ago)
Ok, so what kind of fusion do plants have that adds those extra two neutrons to carbon so we can date them?
Wes Whiteside (3 months ago)
Theory supported by debated historical record (Genesis): The worldwide flood that Noah survived in a big box (NOT boat. "Ark" means box.) probably buried an unbelievable amount of veggitation to create our fossil fuels. The unbelievable amount would have been made possible by the vapor/ice canopy ("waters above" separated from waters below by the expanse of air during creation) subjecting the plants and animals to hyperbaric pressures and also pumping extra C-14 into... everything.
Keto Kat NKGoddard (3 months ago)
You are suggesting that we carbon date materials that are exposed to the open air? That seems highly unreliable regardless of fossil fuel‘s or otherwise. My understanding is that carbon dating comes from scraping things that have been deeply buried and protected for hundreds of thousands of years and no atmospheric carbon should have reached that rock? I think that the logic on this one is a little bit faulty.
Fox Mulder (3 months ago)
Havent you heard that the earth aphelion an perihelion effects the half life of a atom? Among many other things carbon dating has always been a fallible technique. Just because they say so doesnt mean its true.
Петър Петров (3 months ago)
How old is a given table? Or chair? Or computer? Or processor? Or transistor maybe? Isn't it abstract and subjective? The author said а mummy. OK, then where we measure carbon14? Maybe the bones, the remaining flesh, bandages, the sarcofag's corpus, or the sarcofag's decoration.
Top Dog (3 months ago)
NPCs watch this.
R3Testa (4 months ago)
How old is Old Man Euscrips, anyway?
Wonton (4 months ago)
Stefan looking swole af in this video.
Jason Gastrich (4 months ago)
I haven’t trusted carbon dating since creation scientists exposed its weaknesses and flaws. It is interesting to see that it is becoming even less reliable.
Alex Thompson (3 months ago)
Wait so basically creationists pointed to irefutable weakness until they have to give in. But to save themselves they blame our out put of carbon instead of them working off assumptions that have been proven wrong
alimiel (4 months ago)
Carbon-13 is thought to have the same isotopic distribution in all carbon samples, so the fossils fuels should be emitting C-13 in the same ratio. C-13 originates from stellar nucleosynthesis like C-12 and fossil fuels have no way of filtering or excluding C-13 from C-12. Organic Chemists have been using the C-13 NMR on petroleum samples for decades as well, fossil fuels have the same isotopic distribution of C-12/C-13 only all the C-14 turned to N-14 via beta decay long ago differentiates them.
Eli Butterfield (4 months ago)
"...so we date the fossils by the rocks that they're found in. Great!... how do we date the rocks? We date the rocks by the fossils that are found in them."
Ignes Andros (4 months ago)
At 3:27 - 1% of the Earth's atmosphere IS NOT C-13. It may make up 1% of atmospheric Carbon, but that's a different thing by gigatons.
Chaotic Phoenix (4 months ago)
this is all based upon a lie... that there is more carbon in the atmosphere then in the past... the problem is, there is data that has proven that there is less carbon in the air, much less then 100 years ago, and much less then 1000 according to them...
Brian Koehler (4 months ago)
What about all of the nuclear testing which increased the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere as well?
Alex Kim (4 months ago)
What happened to his nose
Steven Wilson (4 months ago)
Gotta keep pumping the burning fossil fuels is going to literally kill us all myth. Fossil fuels are a miracle and have lead to the industrial revolution and transformed human civilization, leading to longer and healthier lives. No good economically viable replacement has been found, except perhaps nuclear—which the same people who hate fossil fuels also hate. Wind power decimates birds, and is intermittant along with solar, which has a limited shelf life before you have to dispose of the panels, which are expensive to produce. Both wind and solar cost too much, and solar contributes significantly to pollution in its production. But now the miracle of fossil fuels has been under assault by people who want to transform the government of the planet into a singular unelected power structure which keeps the wealthy elites in power, and the rest of us as poor slaves. They have duped enough people into thinking that carbon fuels are evil and spread enough money into "scientific research" to find enough ways that carbon fuels are evil to create a self-fulfilling pseudoscience of anti-carbonism.
Robert Phillips (4 months ago)
Can we stop calling it fossil fuel?
Robert Phillips (4 months ago)
Ѳbj3ctl3ss Ħatr3d it’s earths recycled material constantly recycling itself under immense pressure. The amount of “fossil” would be so minuscule that’s it’s almost silly to refer to it that way. It’s oil. The earth will always produce it. fos·sil /ˈfäsəl/Submit noun the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.
Aon Duine (4 months ago)
Well it is fuel, provided by the refinement of fossils of dead plants and animals... So I mean... It's already an accurate name.
Itbelink (4 months ago)
Is this only relevant to fossil fuels or also from normal fluctuations in the atmosphere over time? I'm curious if fluctuations throughout history can effect the amount in objects ....and therefore making carbon dating flawed? I would seriously hope not and hope it would have been thought about, or doesn't work that way, but why not ask.
Firaro (4 months ago)
Where can i get a shirt like his?
DrB1900 (4 months ago)
Seems like this only affects dating of counterfeit items. If a reputable scientist digs something out of rock, or dirt, or ice, and knows it got there pre-1950, then dating still works fine.
Mark Gigiel (4 months ago)
The religious NUTS are going to love THIS.
Alex Thompson (3 months ago)
Well I mean they did kind of predict the problems from early
Kent Schultz (4 months ago)
Makes one question Carbon Dating itself
niccatipay (4 months ago)
Carbon: It not like you or anything... d-dummy! Scientist: Ok, i just want to let you know... *leaves* Carbon: uwu wait no! Come back! come back *cries* dont leave 😫😭
Mate Jebach (4 months ago)
And Jesus said to his disciples: Never believe in carbon dating and believe only in Me and My Father! And send donations to my evangelical church on address: ...
jzi4 (4 months ago)
Good for fossil fuel! Carbon is to old to be dating, it should learn to be single.
Soto Gremble (4 months ago)
So?
Alexander Robinson (4 months ago)
All dating methods are terribly inaccurate
Crystal Kamashari (4 months ago)
Ha ha.
Jack Jensen (4 months ago)
Why can't we just compare the amount of decaying C-14 to the amount of stable C-13, and ignore the C-12 since its levels are so unreliable?
Alex Thompson (3 months ago)
+Jack Jensen really? What they have been telling me is that it is completely accurate and the further you go back the more of the substance you should see
Jack Jensen (3 months ago)
+Alex Thompson for Carbon-14 dating that's true, yeah. I believe there are some other radioactive molecules with longer half-lives that are used to date older stuff, but they get less accurate the farther you go back and the more exotic and rare the radioactive substances are
Alex Thompson (3 months ago)
+Jack Jensen to some extent it does have it's uses yes. Because we know that carbon dating cannot exceed 55000 years so at least with it we can know that a specific thing could not have been around more than 55000 years with it
Jack Jensen (3 months ago)
+Alex Thompson I mean, carbon dating DOES work though... Yeah the amount of radioactive compounds in things vary (I think that's what you're getting at....) but we have enough of an idea of how much of them exist in certain substances to give us a rough idea
Alex Thompson (3 months ago)
+Jack Jensen true but another problem arises. If the earth is billions of years old how would we know what came before the other one to compare? We can't date it because it's the dating method itself we are testing. There's just no way to know
abloogywoogywoo (4 months ago)
I can't think of any funny jokes. I must be getting old.
Luke Powell (4 months ago)
Yeah is it because internet dating took over?
allanGEE (4 months ago)
With their short 5,700 year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980’s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it.
negi Sprinfield (4 months ago)
interesting they use a picture of a nuclear power plant to "show carbon emissions" all that "smoke" was actually steam lol
1 2 6 20 90 544 5096 (4 months ago)
It's a coal power plant. The large towers are just cooling towers. The thin ones emit CO2.
Leif Harmsen (4 months ago)
God hates carbon dating... turtles, pigeons, mixed-fabrics, just read Leviticus. God hates everything!
Gabriel Babbitt (4 months ago)
I have a real problem with people showing pictures of nuclear power plants when they're talking about the dangers of fossil fuels (2:12). Nuclear power is the cleanest energy humanity has ever produced and the white stuff is just steam coming out. There are no carbon emissions. I would expect better from SciShow!
Silent_Stalker (4 months ago)
Gabriel Babbitt You poor fool... it’s worse then chem trails the government sprays over cities and rural areas, it’s a massive drug lab poisoning the earth and your mind Jk, yeah I hate that people show nuclear energy in the same with polluting energy sources Altho it may be a coal power plant
coffeehawk (4 months ago)
Only half the story being told here. look into it elsewhere if you're interested.
DrB1900 (4 months ago)
Neither you nor Wikipedia say how big this effect is. It’s probably just a small additional uncertainty when carbon dating.
DrB1900 (4 months ago)
He quoted a paper with a worst-case forecast for 30 years from now, with who knows what assumptions. It’s been going on since at least 1950, and it’s still a small effect, it sounds like.
Vulcano (4 months ago)
"[...]things that will live in 2050 will seem like 1000 years old" They literaly state it in the video.
Simo Nurmi (4 months ago)
The picture of "burning fossil fuels" really looks like a nuclear power plant.
Vulcano (4 months ago)
But it is a coal power planthttp://www.apimages.com/metadata/MSIndex/Large-fossil-fuel-power-plant-station-emission-/170968158/1392/0
transkryption (4 months ago)
Personally i blame Tinder. Nobody is telling the time to date any more
DrB1900 (4 months ago)
Your picture providing dramatic effect on burning fossil fuels looks a heck of a lot like a nuclear power plant to me :)
Boris Indigo (4 months ago)
"Reducing our fossil fuel usage". Ha. We can't even get people to stop using Fossil fuels when we're told we have little more than a decade before our environmental changes become irreversible.
Дмитро Віюк (4 months ago)
It's the fault of these pesky millennials
Joel (4 months ago)
Oh no Co2! The boogyman strikes again! Fossil fuels, oh no! Wait, didn't this channel say most of the Co2 emissions come from livestock than from burning fossil fuels? But we must stop fossil fuels because we have an agenda!
TheGreen Jarret (4 months ago)
Fake C14 is proven to be unstable. Cosmic radiations, close proximity lightning bolts, EM events like The Carrington will cause false reading. mtDNA mutation analysis done in 2018, not 1968, has proven that no human lineage is more than 6.5k years old, meaning that 100 % of C14 testing done in the last 70 years is worthless, useless and a scam for at least 30 years. This be the most ugly transgarbage i seen. Revolting.
ryan0348 (4 months ago)
Young earthers panick clicking this video
Alex Thompson (3 months ago)
The earth cannot be 6000 years the bible says that
Fivespeed 302 (4 months ago)
Talks about fossil fuel pollution, shows steam from electric power plants. WTF?
1 2 6 20 90 544 5096 (4 months ago)
It's a coal power plant. The large towers are just cooling towers. The thin ones emit CO2.
Software Simian (4 months ago)
if you are going to use an image for carbon dioxide being expelled into the atmosphere, can you not use one that shows a bunch of steam? "Look at all that pollution!!!", Nope its water vapor.
Ultra instinct Shaggy (4 months ago)
What’s more important Fuels or carbon dating The answer is obvious Fuels Carbon dating is helpful But not more important
ConceptHut (4 months ago)
And the issue isn't considered to have happened before due to giant natural unstoppable fires or crap loads of people burning coal or wood fires in old times?
Jackson Percy (4 months ago)
"As he points out in the class; No matter what your background everyone has something they're passionate about and can make art" Sounds all well and good, but if I was an artist my parents would be *very* disappointed in me.
Salty Steel (4 months ago)
"Fossil fuels releasing carbon in the atmosphere" - Shows a picture of a nuclear power plant releasing steam......
Vulcano (4 months ago)
*coal power plant
Big Covfefe (4 months ago)
No such thing as fossil fuels...
Ole Larsen (4 months ago)
It has only something to do with the last hundred years. Why do you want to make a problem out of nothing? Chinese.
Malay Joshi (4 months ago)
Extinction is inevitable human rsce create its own death...we are biggest fools in whole universe
Andy Gosh (4 months ago)
Yeah, carbon dating and the LIVING 6,000 year old penguins. Real scientific.
Letrus100 (4 months ago)
SciShow has shown a consistent tendancy toward "the left" for lack of a better term. They do present facts, but it's the choice of which things they present and their word choice that leave a bad impression on certain topics. This video for example is talking about a problem that has been discovered 70 years ago that can be solved by accounting for the change in levels of the carbon, using the method described in the video or otherwise. So what was the reason for choosing to talk about it? Yes it brings awareness to the problem for a lot of people but, there is a clear attempt to "tear down" what fossil fuels have accomplished for people. Even in the video, they make the claim that less fossil fuels is ultimately better for everyone. Really? Just toss in random politically biased arguable claims I guess. Ignore how much fossil fuels could add to your life if people found more and had cheaper fossil fuels. Not to disregard the negatives but in comparison to what value they add, it's almost non-essential even with a changing climate. But I don't want to argue about fossil fuels value, present only the facts SciShow and stop allowing your bias into your videos or accept your bias wholeheartedly. Don't have this pretend neutrality you try to present if you are just going to subtly add in your politically motivated bias.
Butt Why?? (4 months ago)
So you're saying that the Earth is 6000 years old?
bificommander (4 months ago)
If C13 is stable, why wouldn't the carbon from fossil fuels still contain its share from when that carbon was still in the air? I could see this work if it had a longer half life, but not if it doesn't decay at all.
Marvin Kitfox (4 months ago)
3:57 "If an organic object was found in a hard rock layer" DUDE!! "sedimentary hard rock" takes a LOOOOOOOT longer than 50000 years to form, and the carbon-14 dating method is not usable for anything older than that. Realistically, you should not try to use c14 dating for anything past 35000 years, as your margin of error goes nuts on you. This whole video is basically a brainfart of false information, for those who want to actually know, reference: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration_of_radiocarbon_dates
DavidFMayerPhD (4 months ago)
C-14 was also produced in abundance by atmospheric tests. C-14 is also continuously produced by neutrons from natural uranium hitting stable C-13. Uranium is common in granite.
that guy (4 months ago)
So if there was an advanced civilization that dumped co2 into the atmosphere before ,forest fires and / or volcanoes that had lots of activation in the past or many other factors combined that could make everything we already carbon date look thousands of years older then it actually is? wouldn't this already make carbon dating nothing more then an educated guess and extremely unreliable as it is already?
Steven Myers (4 months ago)
Carbon dating is flawed anyways. It works on the assumption that no outside forces have impacted the carbon balance. We date in other flawed ways too. Now it’s your turn, tell me how much you hate what I just said using the reply button below. ⬇️
facite non victimarum (4 months ago)
Sorry to disappoint you but I agree, so now you'll have to share your hate comments with me.
warhawkjah (4 months ago)
If it shows as 1000 years more than it is then just subtract 1000 from the results. Problem solved.
DntTouchme (4 months ago)
ITS NOT LIKE C12/C14 RATIOS ARE THE SAME THROUGHOUT THE MILLIONS OF YEARS SO IT NEVER WAS ACCURATE TO BEGIN WITH
Majatek (4 months ago)
2:06 "over the years as we've burned fossil fuels we've launched a lot of extra carbon dioxide into the air" *shows picture of a power plant emitting water vapour as steam* nice iflscience-tier research lmao
1 2 6 20 90 544 5096 (4 months ago)
It's a coal power plant. The large towers are just cooling towers. The thin ones emit CO2.
billyfred42 (4 months ago)
Isn't that a nuclear plant at 2:07 when you mention fossil fuels. Nuclear energy isn't produced by fossil fuels, is it?

Would you like to comment?

Join YouTube for a free account, or sign in if you are already a member.