Reliability Of Carbon Dating Baby Mammoth Lyuba?

C

common_sense_seeker

Bicho Voador & Bicho Sugador
Valued Senior Member
There was an excellent TV programme last night 'Waking The Baby Mammoth'. They said that it was 37,000 years old, but I have read an interesting report which states that the reliability of carbon dating around this time is prone to error. Could all the mammoth mummies be exactly 40,000 years old to coincide with the mysterious Laschamps geomagnetic excursion? Could an extreme uplift and earthquake event liquefy the landmass at this time to trap a multitude of high arctic mega-fauna? I believe so. Waking The Baby Mammoth.

Variations in Atmospheric 14C content 40, 000 ago

Here is a really shocking – to our previous way of thinking – picture. Vast herds of enormous, well-fed beasts not especially designed for extreme cold, placidly feeding in sunny pastures, delicately plucking flowering buttercups at a temperature in which we would probably not even have needed a coat. Suddenly they were all killed without any visible sign of violence and before they could so much as swallow a last mouthful of food, and then were quick-frozen so rapidly that every cell of their bodies is perfectly preserved, despite their great bulk and their high temperature. What, we may well ask, could possibly do this?
 
I think everyone just thinks "Too stupid" when they see your name in the author section. And I hardly think citing pop science documentaries is 'too complicated'.
 
well look at it like this:

how reliable can any dating be that tries to show something is 40,000 yrs. old?...10,000 yrs old, 1,000 years old? When there is even a little faith involved then it becomes a matter of what you want to believe.

that is as far as i can tell.
 
Thanks for that. The ivory trade of 20,000 pairs of tusks in a few decades requires hundreds of thousands of mammoths suddenly frozen and permantly so in perfect condition. Only the finest quality ivory can be turned.
 
Ivory degenerates unless it is frozen? How interesting. You have such gems of information. I wish, like you, that I had access to a parallel universe with different laws.
 
Ophiolite said:
Ivory degenerates unless it is frozen? How interesting. You have such gems of information. I wish, like you, that I had access to a parallel universe with different laws.
Click to expand...
It has a problem when it dries out apparently. Here's some evidence of a warm arctic in the ice age:

Radiocarbon-dated macrofossils are used to document Holocene
treeline history across northern Russia (including Siberia). Boreal
forest development in this region commenced by 10,000 yr B.P.
Over most of Russia, forest advanced to or near the current arctic
coastline between 9000 and 7000 yr B.P. and retreated to its
present position by between 4000 and 3000 yr B.P. Forest establishment
and retreat was roughly synchronous across most of
northern Russia. Treeline advance on the Kola Peninsula, however,
appears to have occurred later than in other regions. During
the period of maximum forest extension, the mean July temperatures
along the northern coastline of Russia may have been 2.5° to
7.0°C warmer than modern. The development of forest and expansion
of treeline likely reflects a number of complimentary
environmental conditions, including heightened summer insolation,
the demise of Eurasian ice sheets, reduced sea-ice cover,
greater continentality with eustatically lower sea level, and extreme
Arctic penetration of warm North Atlantic waters. The late
Holocene retreat of Eurasian treeline coincides with declining
summer insolation, cooling arctic waters, and neoglaciation.
 
I see you have avoided my implicit question. No change there then: rude and ignorant as ever.
 
It's the high number of ivory finds that is perplexing. It suggests that there was a high mortality rate amoung the mammoth fauna of the northern arctic. There is evidence of a regium from the glacial advance. The population could explode everytime the Arctic warmed to create an expanse of habitat. That's my pet theory of the moment.
 
common_sense_seeker said:
That's my pet theory of the moment.
Click to expand...
Oh goody, another pet theory you formulate without evidence or logic. How are you doing justifying all your other pet theories? You know, the ones you were to sure were true and worth investigating. Are you not investigating them now?
 
What is the difference between a pet theory of CSE and a tribble?

Here is a clue: Tribbles are lovable and endearing but ultimately a pain in the ass.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top