How Carbon Dating Works

In the movies, scientists use “carbon dating” to determine the age of ancient artifacts and dinosaur bones. But what is the real science behind carbon dating, and how does it work?
Learn more at HowStuffWorks.com:
science.howstuffworks.com/envi...
Share on Facebook: goo.gl/Vqhyah
Share on Twitter: goo.gl/gN9pcu
Subscribe: goo.gl/ZYI7Gt
Visit our site: www.brainstuffshow.com
SOURCES:
science.howstuffworks.com/envi...
paleobiology.si.edu/geotime/ma...

[@sean3533]

I've tried carbon dating. One day I'll find the right one.

[@hero3509]

Sean Haggard chup bee 😘😘

[@micahstarks4818]

Ha!😄

[@MattFrost224]

Remember to be...positive. ;)

[@SpyderRae]

You've only got 50,000 years though. So get cracking.

[@wapperjaw8282]

I married my carbon dating ... it kept on lying to me .. divorced carbon dating

[@SuperGamer87]

To be fair, just for accuracy's sake, finding a wooden ax handle wouldn't in itself prove it's 12,000 years old. Just that the wood is at least as old. Determining the age of the wood's manipulation is determined by other supplementary means of investigation.

[@SuperGamer87]

So, who else is here just to see how good or bad a job these guys do explaining this stuff? A lot of guys are smart, but not all that great as presenters. Some guys are great presenters, but not all that careful as teachers. There's an art to teaching science. Hard to master both sides.

[@RexGalilae]

@@SuperGamer87 Few men managed to do that and they were so great that we worship them today. Richard Feynman, the greatest of them :')

[@JohnDoe19991]

So someone cut a 12000 year old tree to make axe? Or did he dig up a decaying tree that was 12000 years old to me his axe. He must be a cheap axe maker lol

[@machineunit]

@@JohnDoe19991 exactly. It's safe to assume the wood was fairly fresh when the handle was made becaus It's highly unlikely that someone would use old decaying wood to make a handle.

[@kosburn9737]

@@machineunit So decaying wood can last that long?

[@yukseloden6939]

Watching this guy talking about carbon dating, I remember Ross Gellar lecturing.

[@user-bi5yk6gu8w]

me to OMG 😂

[@KingFinnch]

3:03, Tinder's new tagline

[@louieruiz2181]

Shabiduble 😂😂😂😂😂

[@yoursleepparalysisdemon1828]

Amazing

[@SiobhanS1868]

😂😂🤣

[@TylerPOV]

Lmfao

[@gustavoarechigajr8805]

Has anyone tried to carbon dating an ancient form of communication scientists call: "MySpace"?

[@stefancharon7082]

Gus Bus why can't i comment on any thing? i can only reply. the comment bar just says Opening....

[@neutronstar6739]

Stefan C Your internet is slow...

[@amenm18]

It's not possible to find the age of something over 60,000 years. Sorry dude

[@240SSONLY]

Some hard NASA budget was allocated to this "My Space" task during the early 80s, but even they admit it's older than Pando the Trembling Giant in Utah

[@amandawolfe4097]

This is a very stupid question, but I grew up in a Christian bubble and have never been taught this (I’m 18), Does carbon 12 stay constant? I’ve always been told that carbon dating is unreliable because the carbon changes depending on world catastrophes that occur (a volcano eruption will increase the amount of carbon and chemicals in general in the atmosphere, making things older than they actually are)

[@fatherofjman2475]

There actually alot of odd things beyone just that with carbon dating but yes environmental conditions effect carbon dating severely.

[@axerveon2916]

That is why there is so much controversy with aging methods even amongst the scientific community. Environmental factors can SEVERELY screw the results, but scientists usually continue to test using different methods until they get the results they want. 😂

[@vladalecs92]

how do we know that the ratios of C12 and C14 have always been the same in the last 50 000 years?

[@Ozzah]

vladalecs92 Have you even known a time when we had a different number of suns? The solar output of our always "only star" is fairly constant, even given the ~11 year solar cycles. Dinosaurs never had factories or nuclear weapons, so why would you believe the ratio was significantly different?

[@fr0stbite888]

+Ozzah Because there could of been more production of carbon through everyday life such as breathing.

[@Ozzah]

Fr0stBite that was so stupid it doesn't even deserve a proper response.

[@fr0stbite888]

+Ozzah How?

[@Ozzah]

Fr0stBite Did you even watch the video? 1) Carbon isn't "produced", and certainly not by breathing. 2) Even if carbon were produced by breathing, how does that change anything? The whole point is that solar radiation predictably changes some Carbon-12 into Carbon-14, and we date based on Carbon-14 decaying back to Carbon-12 at a predictable rate. 3) "could of"? seriously?!

[@benthk3dprt136]

A recent viking shipwreck was found, the bones were dated and the carbon14 method was applied, but the bones showed a much higher age difference, this is because vikings spend alot of time on sea and consumed alot of fish, the amount of carbon 14 is much older in sea life creatures then in surface consumption ( plants, mamals,etc.)

[@compositioncompilation]

That's interesting..l was just thinking..if water contains more carbon..and everything was coveted in water for some time..would it transfer into the solid things that came out at a later time..? That would account for the higher measurement and misleading readings.. Implications are huge. The Dating of those things could therefore be thousands or millions of years out if the carbon 14 transferred to said object. Perhaps mankinds history is nowhere near the length of time some believe it to be. The bible account of creation of Adam and Eve takes us back to around 6000 years or so... The earth itself was around much longer than that..and was..according to genesis, covered in water.. There is much evidence for design. We have and continue to learn much from the things we see in nature.. Evidence of a mind superior to ours. The finely tuned ecosystems and interwoven cycles speak to a complexity beyond ..order beyond chaos or randomness. Prophecy or rather Fulfillment of prophecy is another reason for my faith or confidence in scripture. With existential crisis facing humanity The Creator has promised he will not allow the destruction of all this. Rev 11:18. The world he has promised is a wonder ..a solid Hope for our future. Rev 21:1-5. Revelation 11 reveals that a temple exists in this time.. symbolic of the existence of an arrangement involvong people that would be acceptable to him..contrasting with those whose intent is to ruin the earth.

[@whizkybent]

It just means you're science is BS

[@Genesis-rx7vn]

@@compositioncompilation Very interesting observations. It reminded me of 2 Peter 3:5 which says “5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:” This “earth standing out of the water and in the water”, as suggested by my pastor, could point to what he calls the Canopy Theory. He says it could be understood as the earth being protected from cosmic rays, through a layer of water (or ice, precisely) above the atmosphere. This layer of water is believed by the Jews either, and if true, could explain the discrepancies of the carbon dating method. Because it could block the cosmic rays when the canopy was there, before the flood of the days of Noah. It also would explain why ancient creatures were gigantic, because it would increase the air pressure and the concentration of Oxygen in the air, making breathing much easier than now. Your thoughts?

[@itza8334]

Probably because carbon dating is not accurate. It has never been

[@buzzerking]

@@compositioncompilation How would it transfer to the solids? What evidence is there for design? What evidence do we have of a mind superior to ours?

[@andrewsanders5092]

So I'm just making sure I understand this, but this type of dating works given the conditions that the ratio of carbon-12 and carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been the same and that no external factor has changed the atmosphere to cause a change in that ratio in the last 50,000 years?

[@karhukivi]

There have been some minor changes in other factors, but the cosmic radiation flux (which produces C14) is fairly constant. There is a calibration curve updated regularly by dating items of known age, e.g. tree rings, ancient documents and buildings of known historical age, and that helps to improve the precision of radiocarbon age determinations. There is also relative precision, e.g. an item clearly older, say buried beneath a 5th century castle, will be found to be older by C14 also.

[@mountainsideoralcare]

George Reynolds is not answering your question. Yes, this type of dating works only under the leap of faith that the ratio of carbon-12 to carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always (alawys meaning up to 50,000 years) been the same as today. Otherwise it does not work. And there is compounding evidence that in the past 100 years that ratio has not been constant thus widening the size of that leap of faith. Of course, scientists do not like that fact as an entire narrative has already been built around c-14 dating over the last 70 years which puts its premises in question.

[@roosterqmoney]

You also have to accept that radiation levels from the sun are constant. Solar flares can't exist. It also seems like vegetation growing near uranium would have higher c14 levels

[@paytonpryor]

The atmosphere of earth has changed over time, wouldn't the rate of production of carbon 14 and 12 atoms have changed over time? Sure they are formed at a constant rate now, the atmosphere is relatively stable now; the atmosphere has still changed slowly but still relatively dramatically over time.

[@thefourthperspective]

Have you heard of ice cores? We can figure out the composition of the atmosphere exactly due to air bubbles trapped in ice dating back hundreds of thousands of years and they have made reference to that

[@paytonpryor]

@@thefourthperspective Thanks. I forgot about ice cores.

[@roosterqmoney]

How do they know when ice was frozen? It's all guesses and speculation. It is psuedo science.

[@TheUltamatium]

Sounds like it works but how do you know those carbon fossils weren’t contaminated at some point with other substances that may have delayed or sped up the carbon decay in that plant or animal?

[@donavancaton2042]

But did they though….

[@GMLwholesale]

@@soldier7332Dino Bones have never been found. There are none in museums either. Those are made from other materials and animal

[@roosterqmoney]

He said that carbon dating only works back 50k years. So how could they have c14 in them?

[@loopz_attack1658]

@@GMLwholesaleextraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. But im assuming you have no evidence for anything you just said, so youre just wrong.

[@bangaloreshydrohome5863]

This feels like an actor delivering his lines.. Not knowing what it is... But Josh, I'm a big fan of how stuff podcast man,

[@KshitijPatil1]

am I the only one who's feeling sleepy just listening to this guy talk?

[@awkwardmonster]

yes.

[@Omni-kyun]

No.

[@rupy098]

lol because he is the host of a very popular podcast that I listen to when I'm going to sleep

[@adnorob]

speed up the play time to 2x

[@neoshelioz8909]

no , even i almost fell asleep, lol, no seriously

[@shinchan7570]

The ending was so hilarious though😂. Btw...thanks!!❤️

[@Aledahal]

Omg i just found this Channel! Love the no nonsence but chill teacher vibe Edit. I am back and saddened you weren't in all videos.

[@lilcutebirdy4630]

Is it only me who laughed out when he said "good luck future anthropologist and archaeologist . Sorry 🤷"??? 😂

[@babachlovari4782]

I always doubted carbon dating and this video has now increased my suspension, first of all how did they come across this time line of 5700 or so years ? so many questions

[@comeflywithme8234]

It requires belief.

[@ryanwaldner2993]

I think they guess

[@jacobmeyerson2420]

The science behind it doesn't seem very certain to me either, but the reason they get those numbers is by measuring decay rates over the short term say 10 or 20 years and it always follows the same logarithmic function (same speed of decay) so we assume it applies across the board. A lot like the way the speed of gravity works. if you know how high from the ground a marble is dropped, you will know how long it will take to hit the ground. With carbon dating the hight is the amount of C-14 living things have before they die and the time would be determined based on how much remains given the rate of decay.

[@babachlovari4782]

@@jacobmeyerson2420 even if they measure based on decaying rates it still would’ve been questionable because the decaying process itself is different for everything its all based on what the matter is or where it is conditions etc. so how would anyone living today could measure the decaying process of a dinosaur?It just doesn’t add up

[@benjaminjernfors]

@@babachlovari4782 You mix biological decay with radioactive decay. Those are two completely different things and carbon dating uses the latter. As far as I know the half-life of an element is a constant in normal circumstances(outside of particle accelerators and away from black holes). So the rate carbon-14 goes through radioactive decay at the bottom of the ocean is the same as on the top of Mt. Everest.

[@R.Senate]

Woah! Thanks!❤️ It was informative.. At first I thought how can someone explain Carbon dating in 4minutes but You are really good.👍👍

[@shaileshmaurya1209]

He shud have taken 4 more minutes and explained in a bit elaborative manner .. That wud have been more appreciable.. Anyway he did good

[@KingFinnch]

0:43 Just like my father

[@KingFinnch]

He even changed his name to carbon 14

[@mcleod9309]

WHAt. ...

[@euphoria.yunjin]

underrated 😂

[@michaelruiz6530]

" Nitrogen becomes carbon." If there was less nitrogen in the atmosphere for any real length time would that change test results?

[@Kaiju3301]

At the timescales in which carbon dating is useful, it doesn’t matter because the atmosphere has been very stable the last 50,000 years.

[@citationneeded2093]

@@Kaiju3301 no it hasn't been lmao

[@igame8309]

@@Kaiju3301 this bring up a new question, how do you know that the atmosphere been the same for the past 50k years ???

[@wertiaaudit5746]

@@Kaiju3301I believe, wrong different nitrogen levels everywhere

[@ouphe_music]

It’s calibrated using bristlecone pine trees. You can count the number of rings to determine age, and also line up dead trees’ rings with younger trees’ to count back thousands of years. From that you can carbon date each ring separately and calibrate the measurement based on the known age.

[@jamiltuacar7201]

Then how the heck they saying something million ago when the carbon dating is just thousands?

[@alvinderis8693]

there are other methods better than carbon dating. google mo tanga.

[@YKIMPetje95]

It's all nonsense

[@coffeebeann1]

Propaganda..fight for whose ..cooler so dumb

[@coffeebeann1]

Now we gotta unlearn the bullshit they wanted us to think was facts

[@ishouldntbesayingthisbecau1257]

@Ben Baxter I’m sorry. I’m not bias in any situation here, but isnt that religion too?

[@MichaelHarto]

if a time traveler brought back an item from the past, the carbon dating of the item would not include the time span from which he took the item in the past to the present, right?

[@HANITAI.]

how do you know how much carbon 14 did it originally have?

[@anshul5563]

Its not about that, its about the ratio of C-12 to C-14, which is constant, so they take the ratio they have known, and as C-14 decays, ratio also changes and thats how they do it.

[@umargul5644]

Great job sir thanks for uploading such informative knowledge so early 8 years ago..

[@tommyreusse3858]

You would think cataclysmic events on earth and air pressure differences would be able to influence carbon dating readings?

[@mrs.o.1265]

Great video!! Thank you! Well explained! My middle school students will appreciate this!!:-)

[@Martarini]

No they won't. Its a bunch of lies. You better tell them the flaws of it.

[@alexabplanalp4455]

Maria Ayala Such as?

[@trikebeatstrexnodiff]

@@Martarini mind telling us the flaws?

[@mangeshpowar]

great video thanks buddy... helped a lot

[@GriffinReda]

hey buddy maybe you need some mental help too

[@mishi.intuitive22]

wow, this video actually helped me out so much.

[@Martarini]

(Sorry to break it to you but this is 100% bs. It all based on assumptions :) )

[@loneventhorizon]

OMG Josh!!!!!!! lol man i've listened to hundreds of your podcasts!. Can't believe i stumbled on to your youtube page looking at carbon 14 info haha. Love you guys stuff. Keep up the good work. Edit: First channel ever i wish i could subscribe to twice haha. New favorite youtube channel.

[@Ben-br1bu]

I assume that Carbon 14 also decays in the air? So, is the ratio of Carbon 14 to Carbon 12 in the atmosphere constant, increasing or decreasing? Because he said that we know at what constant rate they form and we know at what constant rate they decay but he didn't mention whether these rates are equal or differ from each other.

[@apexyl5135]

The carbon 14 is constantly being resupplied thus maintaining the ratio of 14 to 12.

[@TheProesNooob]

Awesomely explained carbon dating A small suggestion,just add a subtitle

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

Good info!!!

[@mesatreecare]

I also don't understand how one would determine the half life of C14 to be 5730 years exactly. wouldn't an experiment of this duration be necessary to prove this definitely?

[@jaclynmarie5747]

all you need to do is guess ;)

[@mesatreecare]

+Jaclyn Marie oh! how silly of me! I shoulda known that! lol

[@mesatreecare]

yeah im aware of most of the methods you mentioned there. So what you are saying is we cross reference every dating method we have to narrow down and get a more accurate approximation as to the age of the article. I think i get it. Thats how i understood it from college chemistry. I did not know Atomic clocks had anything to do with gps though...interesting. But i think what we have deteremined here though is that nothing is precise and we can't really know how old anything exactly is. ANother thing I see is nothing is really old...i mean if you have a bone you found today you could say its hours old from the condition you found it in earlier today. next week it will be a week old bone discovery. or a rock. Say i have a big rock and i break it in half today. Next week...Those two rocks will be one week old..... something to think about.

[@susan45tb]

Its a reproducible result and is most likely correct to a degree of accuracy.

[@boliussa]

+Kelly sounds like one has to extrapolate then

[@wiggelpuppy5474]

I'm curious of the results of carbon dating a chicken bone from KFC. Would eleven herbs and spices alter the results?

[@rupy098]

omg im died lol

[@fudgedogbannana]

Not by much, the herbs and spices start to lose gabon 14 as they are harvested (dead) the chicken starts to lose carbon 14 after it dies, may be weeks, months or just a couple of years difference

[@Martarini]

Who knows! I have no idea! But lets just guess 500 million years!! Either way it doesn't matter its 100% stupid! surprise!

[@princess_soluz]

wiggelpuppy hahahahaha!!! 😂😂😂

[@stephencurtis9400]

no but the microwave ovens they nuke em in before they fry them ,ime pretty sure woul;d.

[@surendersingal2192]

Great explanation. Thank you sir.

[@AnderZ312]

So your saying that if at any point on earth in the last 50,000 years, there was a hugely abnormal change in earths atmosphere, carbon dating would be completely disproven?

[@thespontaneoustomato2676]

No, he did not mean to imply that carbon dating is only accurate within the last 50,000 years. Carbon dating can be used to date organic materials up to about 50,000 years old, but there are also other radiometric dating methods that can be used to date materials that are much older than that. It is true that changes in the Earth's atmosphere over time can affect the accuracy of carbon dating, but scientists have developed methods to calibrate and correct for these changes. For example, tree-ring chronologies and other methods can be used to determine the variations in carbon-14 levels in the atmosphere over time, and these variations can be used to calibrate carbon dating results. Additionally, there are other radiometric dating methods, such as uranium-lead dating and potassium-argon dating, that do not rely on carbon-14 and can be used to date materials that are much older than 50,000 years. Overall, radiometric dating methods have been extensively tested and are considered to be very reliable for determining the ages of rocks, fossils, and other materials. While there are limitations and potential sources of error in any dating method, the scientific community has developed rigorous standards and procedures to ensure the accuracy and reliability of these methods.

[@m-zap1332]

You mention that the human activities is messing with the atmosphere's ratios which could make the future of these dating methods be more unreliable, so my question is: by this logic, could the ratios that we know today not be somewhat unreliable already? I mean if we know that the ratios are being affected by our activities, how do we know that the ratios haven't already been affected by other things in the past, thus allowing for the possibility that the dates we get today are already unreliable because of effects in the past?

[@do_gotcha]

+Matheas I'm no expert, but he says that it is found in once living organism. So I would guess that once dead, you stop consuming Carbon 14 from the atmosphere. So since everything we see has already been dead for some time, it's not as affected by human activity as living organisms are today.

[@m-zap1332]

+do_gotcha I see what you're saying but my question is: if human activities have affected the ratios in the short time that we've been alive and messing with the ratios, is it not possible that in the past, the ratios have already been affected by various organisms/natural forces/catastrophic events etc so that when we measure the dates today, they are already off to an unknown extent because the organism lived at a time when the ratios were different.

[@vibinpaul8910]

like a volcanic eruption perhaps

[@jayakushal5243]

How do we know that the C12 and C14 atoms ratio in the atmosphere is same since the past years ?

[@ComeAgainVicky]

It’s not, it does vary, but the variation isn’t significant enough. For example, we know that before 1000 BCE there was more carbon in the atmosphere, so whenever possible it’s good to confirm your dates with a second type of dating method, but even with this variation it doesn’t really make much of a difference in the results.

[@karensantana-pagan1401]

@@ComeAgainVicky interesting how do they know that for a fact? Can they prove it? No, it's all mere supposition. 🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️🤷🏻‍♀️

[@ComeAgainVicky]

@@karensantana-pagan1401 No, dear, that’s science. They CAN and HAVE proved it many times.

[@karensantana-pagan1401]

@@goos8841 not possible, earth is only about 6,000 years old.

[@igame8309]

@@goos8841 Could the ratio be different between two part of the planet? Like Antarctica and Asia or Africa?

[@OmegaMegalodon]

awesome video

[@Deadlift_inside_cast]

Thanks vlog bros!!!

[@larsonken181]

I have a question. Is it rare that a fossil has color? I found a leaf fossil which has some green leaves and I don't know if it's common. I tried googling it but didn't find anything.

[@PriscillaSephirothRose]

Did you ever find out?

[@paulspring]

Found my new "Go To Sleep" video. Sweeeeet

[@psychopath4156]

Sweeet

[@amandaweeks267]

agreed

[@Terr0909]

Nive vid, Thanks!

[@katelynmills7574]

OMG It's Josh Clark off the SYSK podcast!! This was playing in the background and I though to myself "wow that voice sounds familiar"

[@psychopath4156]

Subscribing to your channel:)

[@fr0stbite888]

He said it himself best on events the ratio changes... How do we know if the ratio was the same 1k years ago than from today?

[@adnorob]

did you miss the part where carbon-14 is made in the atmosphere and absorbed by plants and eaten by us, when we die we no longer obtain any more carbon 14. We make an assumption that beings in the past had as much carbon-14 in them as we do now +- some. An assumption is not scientific fact. The best we can do is put the puzzle pieces together and make an educated guess.

[@adnorob]

dendrochronology is a very reliable way to measure c-14 levels back thousands of years ago. If you have a modern living tree and can measure c-14 levels back a few hundred years, you can find a tree that has been dead a couple hundred years but overlaps piecing together how much c-14 was around. I do not know the extent that people have done this but since there are trees that are a couple thousand years old, I would guess somewhere around that time to double that time would be a safe bet on "accurate" RCD

[@Martarini]

Asssuummppttiioonnsss. please scroll up and read my reply to Micah Buzan.

[@ciudadanokien1039]

What if the atmosphere is different? For exaple, in a greenhouse the ratio of oxigen would be higher. Would that affect the results of carbon dating?

[@karensantana-pagan1401]

@@adnorob yeah, you said it yourself, it's a guess. That's not proof, it's just a guess. And they want me to believe in their guess. 🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️🤦🏻‍♀️

[@bennettdaniel7779]

There are a lot of problems with this of course. First off, the decay of C14 isn't necessarily constant. It can be affected by sunlight, water, and pretty much anything else. Secondly, there are a lot of assumptions you have to make in order to use this method of dating, or any other method of radiometric dating. The half life equatiom has four variables: Time, Rate of decay, Initial amount, and Final amount. We don't know how much C14 something had to start off with. Thirdly, like he said, this method of dating can theoretically only work for a few thousand years. Therefore, you have to operate with preconceived assumptions about how old something is before you can actually "date" it. Same with any other radioactivity based dating method. Overall, radiometric dating is actually not all that reliable

[@Didleeios88]

Decay of C14 or any other isotope has not been observed to be affected by sunlight, water, or anything else in the environment. If it were it would be a lot easier to clean up after a nuclear disaster. On the other hand your point of starting amount is well taken. We know that the starting ratio has changed even in our lifetime. To assume that the ratio has been constant for 50,000 years before is a enormous leap.

[@boosomentity]

how could we establish the half life of carbon 14 in the first place and how do we know what the atmospheric composition of our earth's atmosphere was at times before we had the means to measure and record it? this whole carbon dating thing seems like a logic trick

[@LindyHoppingMidwife]

WOAH. I have been listening to the Stuff You Should Know podcast for more than a year now and am very familiar with this guys' voice. Putting a face to the voice is super weird....he looks different than I pictured him. Somehow I thought he was older!

[@tamateaholdaway-howard2537]

Thank god for 1.25x speed

[@tommyg.6542]

You either lied in this video or you don't think flaws in the method of carbon dating are relevant. the only way that carbon dating would be accurate would be if the atmostpheres carbon 14 were stable all the time, but in fact it hasn't reached equalibrium yet, that means it's not the same as 1 year ago because the decay rate is smaller than the intake rate. Assumptions have to be made, therefore it's not reliable in any way.

[@brittniepimental8709]

+Tommy G. Assumptions are made for EVERYTHING. Statistics exist for that reason.

[@lazerbut]

What's your source that the rate of decay is smaller than the rate of formation?

[@isprobablyjobhunting]

Tommy G. Once the plant or animal dies it no longer absorbs (in the case of plants (which by the way give the most accurate carbon dates) or intakes (animals that eat the plants, animals that then eat those animals) the carbon. Your comment seems to imply you don't understand the basic mechanism used to deduce the age of something by way of radiometric dating.

[@yukanakochi1024]

Thanks. I have no clue what any of that means, but I thank you for telling us this :) Thanks, Tommy. If this is true I hope more people see your comment.

[@Tuatara1989]

Yes it does vary, check it out: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Atmospheric_variation Take a look at the 2013 calibration graph. The reason he doesn't mention atmospheric variation, is that it's a very small factor. Therefor it's logical not to talk about this in a 4 minute introductory video on carbon dating.

[@clarahuang7166]

could you do a video on how electron spin resonance dating works

[@tccthechasecenter7665]

Nice job josh!

[@brittniepimental8709]

Technically, you can never have "none left" :p

[@MegaMinecraftGamer10]

Actually, you can have none left. The carbon-14 doesn't "divide" like cells do, it simply changes into something else.

[@mrobvious8598]

Wait long enough and you will.

[@noobist1659]

you can have none left, just wait long enough

[@ciudadanokien1039]

Here you are dealing with natural numbers plus 0. If you start with 8 atoms, after a half life you are left with 4, then 2, then one, then none. You can't have "half an atom" for this matter in particular. Unless there is some sort of explosion. Then the sample is useless. :D

[@ThisHandleFeatureIsStupid]

@@MegaMinecraftGamer10 He was obviously poking fun at the flawed explanation. As it was explained, the result will never reach zero.

[@BoMwarriorVlog]

My own question about reliability of carbon dating: How do "they" know that the right sample is tested everytime? I watched a #Unearthed episode recently on TV (the #ScienceChannel) about #Stonehenge and the tester commented that if the wrong thing was picked up by the test (like soil or certain ash) then it could throw off the results by hundreds of years. I'm not against the science, but wondering if scientists are being close-minded to the fact that some things are more recent than we all think? And also for strict-creationists, if things could be a little later than they think?

[@mrobvious8598]

Why do you assume the sample would be skewed older? If you have a sample older than 50,000 and you introduce carbon 14 to it, the sample will appear younger than it actually is, and the smallest amount would say it died at least within the last 50000 years which would be way off. To make something appear older you would have to change the rate of decay or the rate carbon 14 is produced in the atmosphere, or somehow remove carbon 14 from the sample(most likely contamination problem). Ice cores are one way, among several, to double check the amount of carbon in the atmosphere from a long time ago since ice doesn't eat carbon so the atmosphere is the only way for it to get there, and they only need to go back 50000 years as it doesn't matter after that point anyway since all of the carbon 14 will be decayed. Obviously, you need to figure out the rate of snowfall to know how deep is what age to compare, so alone this method is not enough but we have several ways and they must be cross-checked for consistency. Close-minded? I don't know about that. Scientists are defensive about people obviously making up reasons to say it doesn't work, but few if any real scientists(not KZbin scientists) will say it can't be contaminated. I think what makes scientists so defensive is when someone uses results that are very likely contaminated to say that the science is wrong, kind of a cheap shot. Contamination is actually the reasoning scientists usually provide when we get results that seem illogical(from a scientists perspective). Like testing dinosaur bones that we suspect to be very very old... millions of years. If you have it tested, all the carbon 14 will be decayed but there might be protective residue on it if say, it was in a museum, not cleaned properly, or not sampled properly. That will force invalid results due to the carbon in the protective resin. This really happened, and it's common to hear this dinosaur bone argument. Frankly, I don't know why creationists care because they can still say God created it. Only matters to me when they want it to be 6000 years old or something seemingly ridiculous, and that causes problems with more than just carbon dating.

[@josephmackey2829]

they dont they guess and check

[@TroyannosaurusRex]

I have thought this and that the atmosphere hasn’t stayed the same the whole time. How could we accurately predict what the atmosphere was like at that time. The amount of radiation coming in from the sun, abundance’s in oxygen etc. It’s a great tool in todays world but idk how accurate it really is on a large scale.

[@ayeshakhan-iz5ii]

so great sir

[@yanndivet1980]

Nice video bro

[@DNeil5]

But you cannot prove or know how much carbon 14 was in an item before it started to decay. So if you were to count the drips of water from a faucet, for example, and establish that it would take 10 hours to fill an empty container, this would only be accurate if the container was empty. What if it was a quarter full before the faucet started dripping and you had no way of knowing that is was already a quarter full? Your test, as with the carbon 14 would be inaccurate!!!

[@CertifiedClapaholic]

I am hung up on this as well but I think that you can compare the carbon-14 with carbon-12 and the difference is what amount of carbon-14 has already decayed.

[@gwyn.]

Carbon Dating, also known as Marriage Proposal. - Is when a Human propose to marry another Human by give him/her a diamond. - Plus some other crap said by the proposing side. - Mostly ends with "I do." With half-life unpredictable.

[@ananyatiwari240]

And is hence radioactive for the guy...🤣🤣🤣

[@mikevanderman2727]

😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

[@rustictrain4716]

I just came here for help with my bioanthropology homework. I DIDNT KNOW JOSH CLARK WOULD BE HERE :D

[@edmundoribeiro1182]

that video is really good and precise. nice work

[@coletanner5193]

All science lovers need to watch this. It clearly says the limit to carbon 14 dating is 50K years. Anything before that...nobody knows if it's 60K or 60M years old.

[@josecastro7436]

It’s a good thing Carbon isn’t the only element that is used for dating things.

[@casperjax1250]

@@josecastro7436 It doesn’t matter what process they use. You would have to know the decay rate of whatever they are measuring has been constant the entire time. Without a Time Machine there is now way to know if it was higher, lower, or the same over the last 3 billion years. We only have a very very small timeframe to work with as humans.

[@chin2gooner851]

@coletanner In such cases, other Elements' decay can be used to determine the Age of the Fossil. For example, Potassium decay is 1 Billion or something. But unlike Carbon other Elements aren't abundant in Living Organisms. They consider Relative Dating based on the age of Rocks etc., to determine the age of Fossil remains.

[@samanelectronics]

thank you!

[@beautanner8409]

That was so enjoyable

[@anitatromp6295]

So if I keep eating old fossils and they carbon date me one day t's going to show i'm millions of years old? :P Gonna start right now

[@MrEpicPwnage1]

Actually the opposite, pretty sure the more carbon 14 you have, the more recent you are. Shit you might have discovered time travel

[@doh88018]

there are too many variables in Carbon dating and based on weak assumptions. it's not exact.

[@phoenix21studios]

what control is used to know the rate of decay is the same over time?

[@madmichael8915]

That's all good but how do scientists measure these things? What machines or equipment do they use to find what you said? Can I go around and start carbon date things if I know more details? (it's a rhetorical question)

[@mcleod9309]

Rhetorical question answered

[@PlubusDomis]

Perfectly explained. We have to guess the original amount of C14 in something, then we can determine how many half lives it has gone through to find a date. Key part - we guess from the beginning. This guy Really knows what he's talking about. C14 testing has serious faults also due to industrialization and nuclear warfare that both seriously distort that particular information. Another slam. C14 Testing debunked yall.

[@sclogse1]

So it's off 50,000 years. It's still evolution at work. A mind filled with the known, as time, as the self l. has no relationship to reality. It only seeks to accumulate to support the self. Ideation is not revolution. It's mere weakened continuity.

[@garrickdeanlucasan9304]

Carbon-14 has a half life of 5730years. in 5730 year, half Life 3 will release. Half Life 3 confirimed

[@deepkakadiya5424]

how do u edit and animate your videos ?

[@GreenFesh]

3:02 so carbon dating is gonna help me find a potential mate's information. i feel a little odd about the "long dead for thousands of years" part but hey, never judge a book by its cover.

[@MicahBuzanANIMATION]

Very funny to read the comments of young earth creationists talking about how science doesn't work.

[@jayizzett]

Science is bought and paid for. Catch up

[@Martarini]

This isn't science. It not an observable fact, carbon dating is based almost completely on assumptions. Suppose you walk into a room, and see a burning candle on the table and I ask you the question when was it lit? Okay so lets do some empirical science which is things we can test and measure and observe and test. Not theoretical. Empirical, we can measure and weight it. 1. lets measure the heigh of the candle, suppose its 7 inches tall. Who can tell me when it was lit? 2. Lets measure the rate of burn, lets say 1" / hour. When was it lit? You're gonna have a hard time telling me unless you're willing to make some assumptions. How tall was it when it started? Heres an answer, you don't know. Has It always burned at the same rate? No idea. Say you find a fossil in the dirt and you can measure how much C-14 is in it. You can measure accurately, and can measure how fast its decaying. Thats just like measuring the height of the candle and how fast its burning. Now when did that animal die?? You don't have a clue. Unless you assume the rate of decay has always been the same, and you assume the c-14 it had when it was alive is the same what we have today. Living penguins carbon dated 8,000 years old. Stupid. Its still alive! Shells from living snail dated 27,000 years old. Thats stupid he's still alive. Yeah they're slow but 27,000 years he'd be dead. One part of a mammoth is 29,500 years old, and another part 44,000. Now you can probably see how funny I find it to read the comments of people talking about how evolution is a fact. Its stupid.

[@Tuatara1989]

1) We DO know how tall it was since it started. That's the ratio of C12:C14 in the atmosphere and in all organisms. 2a) Making assumptions isn't a big problem in itself. We are constantly making assumptions to function. It depends on how reasonable those assumptions are. 2b) Constant rate of decay seems like a reasonable assumption to me. We KNOW that there's ways to alter that rate, but they don't seem likely to have occured naturally on earth wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2015/04/27/can-the-decay-half-life-of-a-radioactive-material-be-changed/. 2c) We KNOW that atmospheric C12:C14 ratio varies. But we've also figured out how much and when, and we've constructed calibration graphs to correct for this in modern carbon dating. And the degree to which it varies isn't a big as you seem to imply. It's a problem for accurately dating for instance tools from ancient civilizations (where a 100 years difference matters), but it's nowhere near enough to get you from 50.000y to 6.000y. 3) All in all, in my estimation, you'd have to make bigger assumptions if you want to argue carbon dating is total nonsense, then you need to make for carbon dating itself. 4) Evolution IS a fact. Deal with it.

[@stuartlaw4011]

Micah Buzan science works within its own peramiters anything else is considered nonsensical doesn't seem like science at all

[@lzpf07]

Tuatara89 well I’m going to reasonably assume that your ignorant. Assumptions can be inaccurate despite how reasonable you want believe it is. Assumption are not observable, they’re biased and unnecessary in real science. Let ur ego go and accept true science by definition

[@bryanhk1982]

unrealiable. you have to know the original amount of nitrogen and carbon 14. which is a unknown.

[@danielprime9436]

Wrong. All they have to do is find the dates of accident trees. When you date a tree through tree ring dating you also know the amount of co2 that was in the atmosphere at that time because of the date results. Through this process scientists have been able to create a chart showing how much carbon was in the atmosphere at certain times. Also through the dates of bristlecone pines they can also determine the RATE at wich it was changing. Don't listen to creationist bullshit because it gets proved wrong every time.

[@StreetNickel777]

+DanielPrime94 Show me a tree over 6,000 years old. Also, there is no STEADY rate of change in the ammount of Co2 in the air. Do your research.

[@danielprime9436]

+StreetNickel 777 And 3rd, when did I ever say the rate was steady? It's not. Scientists know that and it proposes no problem for carbon dating

[@ian71x96]

Exactly Bryan... but like many scientific 'facts' are based upon theories. And then the whole world follows all that they say as fact... even though un-be known to all everything that is put in our educational books is the theory of masses. Just because many are saying one thing doesn't make them right.

[@danielprime9436]

+Bainzee No you dumbass. I just refuted everything he said and he has no response to it

[@salazaravegail5967]

Thank you ♥️

[@TroyannosaurusRex]

Not trying to argue or be combative in anyway I just have a question. Doesn’t carbon dating only work based off our atmosphere today? We know the atmosphere changed many times since the creation of earth. I had read somewhere that within the last 100k years we had about 9000% more oxygen in the air than today. Isn’t carbon dating only accurate if the atmosphere had stay the same as when the equation was developed? Again I asked this out of curiosity not trying to spit on years of research I myself didn’t do.

[@karhukivi]

Just saw this comment now - C14 dating only works to 50,000 years back from now, about ten half-lives, which is typical for any radio-dating method, be it Rb-Sr, U-Pb or K-Ar or H3 (tritium) method.

[@ThomasKundera]

Dendrochronology can rectify the ¹⁴C curve accurately: the errors are a few percent on the last few thousand years, a little more on the extreme end of the scale: nothing that fundamentally upsets the chronology, and we know how to correct it.

[@jason-zo9dg]

how carbon dating works... it doesn't.

[@p.butler9071]

Jason 10 points your right.. They carbon dated recently discovered dionsaur soft tissue and came up with dates of 40,000 years gove or take 30,000

[@mcleod9309]

Kent hovend?

[@bossmanting410]

I remember when they carbondated a mamoth. The bones of the body were 10k years old and the tusks were 40k years old...yeh lol it just doesnt work

[@fr0stbite888]

Funny

[@bossmanting410]

+Fr0stBite seriously

[@fr0stbite888]

+bL x Baaa I believe you. It's funny.

[@MegaMinecraftGamer10]

Give me a link to a SCIENTIFIC paper about it, and maybe I'll consider it. But for now, the only information I have is the word of an ungrammatical KZbin commenter whose name is "bL x Baaa", which just screams trustworthiness.

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

So, it had false teeth. Dentistry was very important in those days, not only for the mammoth but also for rhinos and saberteeth animals. It's no surprise to me, a legit Doctor in Biblical Biology and Science.

[@danb77777]

So future people will have problems with carbon dating because the atmosphere has been contaminated with carbon. Have you considered that the same thing has happened in the past?

[@mukundparmar981]

How do voyager 1 and 2 work?

[@cb7pwn]

people who question the science of carbon dating are the same types of people who think the earth is flat and noahs ark was real .

[@Martarini]

I think its unbelievable that people think creationists are dumb, but evolutionists think that life began with dirt, and creationists life began with God. Now you can decide which one sounds smarter. I also think its stupid how evolutionists can believe the Big Bang. They say nothing supposedly spun super fast and exploded and matter was created and the spinning planets formed after millions of years, but then how come 2 planets spin backwards, and 6 moons spin backwards? Evolution is not science, its is a religion, and it is a stupid religion. AND the evolutionists say.. The universe is expanding. Well why have we seen stars blow up (called a super nova) and none form? we've seen about 30 stars form. Yet none form...? A professor said once "well 27 stars blowing up has enough force to create 1 new star" Okay. So you lose 27 to gain 1? 27:1.. The universe is clearly not expanding, stop trying to push your religion so much, and stop trying to teach its a 'fact' and its right, cuz it not. I will say it again, evolution is stupid and I'm being nice here.

[@louiss2595]

Did you watch the video?

[@andrewmoldenhauer1664]

You make a few confusing non sequiturs in this rant.

[@Isaneelol]

cb7pwn so you are not questioning anything coming from "science"? Wow you must be a good scientist! Following all teachings with blind faith?

[@tylernewman9624]

Sometimes the questions are pretty competently answered. Faith doesn't satisfyingly answer most questions. That's why science exists.

[@maizicamel4877]

woooow this information got explained well,,, i was searching everywhere actually how the first ratio exists before carbon 14 start decaying

[@kingBRANDONcastle]

How do you know the original atmospheric ratios of Carbon?

[@jordanncube6411]

Thank you

[@Zdaren]

I am still not sold this is legit.

[@troydixon7]

What about volcanoes and natural forest fires? I think your ratio claims are a bit confusing.

[@astroplutonium]

How do we date archeological objects made of stone, then? Stone is not decaying... I love the precision archeologists are putting on objects that cannot be precisely dated...

[@thespontaneoustomato2676]

Archaeological objects made of stone can be dated using a variety of methods, including direct dating of the stone itself or dating of the materials found in association with the stone. Here are a few examples: 1. Optically stimulated luminescence (OSL) dating: This method can be used to date objects made of minerals such as quartz or feldspar. When these minerals are exposed to sunlight, they become "charged" with energy, and this energy can be released when the minerals are subsequently buried. By measuring the amount of energy released from the minerals, scientists can determine how long ago they were buried and thus estimate the age of the object. 2. Uranium-lead dating: This method is used to date rocks and minerals that contain uranium and lead. Uranium-lead dating is based on the fact that uranium-238 decays into lead-206 at a known rate. By measuring the ratio of uranium to lead in a sample, scientists can determine its age. 3. Dating of associated materials: Archaeological objects made of stone are often found in association with other materials, such as charcoal, bone, or pottery. These materials can be dated using radiocarbon dating, thermoluminescence dating, or other methods, and the age of the stone object can be estimated based on its association with these materials.

[@chrisevans7368]

Hey it’s josh from SYSK. Awesome

[@MOC386]

Nice story bro.

[@evdi4263]

what is the best and more accurate chronological dating method ?

[@j2mfp78]

Reliable humans documenting.

[@sacredbanana1683]

Thanks for some good dating advice

[@chiekohoki]

I think I'm dyslexic. I totally read Brian stuff, and then he said his name was Josh. I was like "why would you false advertise your name and then rat yourself out, it's such a needless lie for no gain...."

[@shria_]

So... are you in any way or form related to It'sAlexClark-?

[@youngfrijoles]

So, if the ratio of carbon-14 to carbon-12 atoms is lower than the expected ratio then that determines how many atoms have already decayed and that’s how we know? Do I understand correctly??

[@wangyixuan4911]

does anybody know the name of the creator, I need to do an intext citation

[@taruntejareddy7858]

What is the method to do this?

[@jamessanchez4398]

Excellent video, really liked your one liner at the end!

[@GriffinReda]

it sucked

[@CoreyANeal2000]

Imagine when they you can do Carbon dating, but instead of fossils and carbon doing it with digital data?

[@rickkwitkoski1976]

messing with the ratios of C12 and C14... yeah several things are known to mess with this ratio so that it is NOT always the same. That is why a "calibration" curve is used to compensate the measured date to a more accurate one that takes into account the known offsets.

[@saigonmonopoly1105]

Carbon dating only concern decaying matter and attom but how can it all be equal in different temperatures and climate of different conditions?

[@19king14]

So where do you take something to get it carbon-dated?

[@GriffinReda]

Ima carbon date yo momma

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

Most churches can help you with that. Otherwise go to a mosque.