Interesting. Not having access to the publication "Origins" here in the
boonies, I can't check what Brown has to say about C-14 dating. But why
would he not publish this in, say, Nature?
> From: Arthur V. Chadwick[SMTP:firstname.lastname@example.org]
> Sent: February 10, 1998 4:34 PM
> To: email@example.com
> Subject: Re: Radiometric Dating Techniques
> At 01:23 PM 2/10/98 -0500, Chris wrote:
> >The evidence suggests that over the past 10,000 years there have
> >been fairly rapid but small fluctuations in C-14 levels (on order
> >of 1% of present level, taking a small number of decades), as well
> >as larger longer-term fluctuations (on order of 10% of present
> >level, taking thousands of years). The latter correlate well with
> >changes to carbon-14 production rate that would be predicted from
> >fluctuations in the Earth's magnetic field.
> Since there are no trees that have 10,000 continuous rings, I would be
> willing to bet that there is some tautological analysis involved in
> extrapolation. Although the picture of tree ring variation appears to
> pretty well closed for about 4000 years, I wouldn't stake my life on
> older than that. Brown has done some interesting analysis on trends
> than 4000 years that is revealing.
> BROWN, R. H. Implications of C-14 age vs depth profile
> Origins 15:19-29 --- 1988
> See also:
> Brown, R. H. C-14 age profiles for ancient sediments and peat bogs
> 2:6-18 2:58. 1975
> BROWN, R. H. The interpretation of C-14 dates. Origins 6:30-44 1979
> BROWN, R. H. Correlation of C-14 age with the biblical time scale.
> BROWN, R. H. The upper limit of C-14 age? Origins. 15:39-43 --- 1988