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?
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.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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.
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...
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.
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!
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.
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!
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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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
the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.
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.
+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
+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
+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
+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
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.
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!
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
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!
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.
"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.
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.
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.
3:57 "If an organic object was found in a hard rock layer"
"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:
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?
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. ⬇️
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
I love this edgy look! I was so excited that her hair, even as short as it is now, was still able to be put into the fun and trendy dutch pigtail braids! Instead of braiding to the ends, I ended them in close together pigtails at the nape of her neck. After I finished braiding, I tugged on the outsides of the braid gently to loosen them and make them a little messy and fun! Since she doesn’t have enough hair to tie around the elastics, I made sure to use elastics that matched her hair so they blend in as much as possible. You could also cover them with clips or bows! A view from the back of her Dutch pigtail braids! A great braid for short hair is a micro accent braid! My biggest tip for braiding short hair would be to add in small slices of hair rather than big ones. I did a small (micro) braid along a slightly curved deep part for anther cute and edgy look! You could also do another one next to it if you wanted a little more to the look, but I really liked how simple this one was. You can see how the part curves a little better from this view of the back. I ended the braid close to the head with an elastic that matched her hair. For our fourth style, we did a 3/4 french braid! Super simple but also super cute! You could do any type braid! It would also look cute using a Dutch braid or a fishtail braid! I loved the side view of this braid! I will for sure be doing this one next time she goes to gymnastics or swimming, whichever comes first! Our last braid is two four dutch lace braids into two loops in the back. Start off by parting the hair down the middle. On each side of the part, do a dutch lace braid, adding hair in from only the section closest to the part as you braid. Tie the braids together in the back with a small elastic and before you pull the hair all the way through to make a ponytail, leave it in a cute little loop! If the hair is a little bit longer, you could do a tiny bun. Repeat this directly under the braid you just did so you have two rows and two loops.
We will have to be coming up with lots more short hair braids in the future, so be sure to give us a follow over at our newly redesigned blog Abella’s Braids to see more as we do them!
Thanks for reading! See you again this time next month!
love these ideas! My daughter recently cut about 8 inches off her hair and is loving her shorter hair, but I’ve mostly been at a loss of what to do with it! Thanks!
Abella has been begging me for at least a year, probably closer to two years, to cut her hair. I posted a photo on Instagram with a question in the caption. “Abella has been begging me to cut her hair short, do you think I should let her do it?” Almost everyone said “YES!” So thanks to all of the good advice from my followers, we did it…and we haven’t regretted it for a second! I think she looks so cute and it really fits her personality! It’s for sure a lot harder to come up with braids but it’s pushed me to step out of my comfort zone! We wanted to show you that even if you have short hair, there are lots of cute braids you can still do!
This first braid (above) is three ladder braids. Start out with a part deep to one side. On the side with less hair, start out by doing a waterfall braid along the part. Under that one, do another waterfall braid, but incorporate the waterfall pieces from the one above it as you braid. Under that one, do a french braid. Incorporate the waterfall pieces from the second braid as you go. We braided each one to the ends and used elastics that matched her hair to tie them off.