<blockquote>
  <p>How many have been validated by historic calibration, and what
  proportion (if any) yielded inconsistent results?</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Often with an item that they want tested, a specific date isn't available so calibration isn't possible, but calibration can be done when dates are known.  Tree rings are most common and (though I've not read of this being done), samples from dead bodies from a specific battle or disease outbreak where a date of death is known.  Article <a href="https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html" rel="nofollow">here</a> and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration_of_radiocarbon_dates" rel="nofollow">here</a>.</p>

<p>The calibration curve represents changes in the amount of C-14 present in the atmosphere which is also a factor.   There wouldn't be a charted curve if calibration hadn't been done quite extensively (see 2nd article above).</p>

<p>There's some room for bacterial or other <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Contamination" rel="nofollow">contamination</a>, especially with older objects, and contamination has lead some inconsistent results but that's not because the theory isn't sound but because of miss-handling.  </p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-04T03:37:59.323Z
I'm fully aware of the methods, both for radiocarbon dating and for calibration. The question is about the actual statistics of measurement - how many, as opposed to the claim of just 'a few'?
Gordon Stanger
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-30T18:35:02.830Z
2015-10-30T18:35:02.830Z
userLTK
<p>I know that the upper limit of radiocarbon dating is typically about 60,000 years, but how many radiocarbon dates have actually been measured? As of October 2015, how many $^{14}\ce C$ (radiocarbon) measurements have been made worldwide, how many have been calibrated by historic dates, and what proportion of measurements have yielded inconsistent results?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-29T06:01:52.703Z
You get 360000 results using "carbon 14 dating" on Google Scholar. Definitely more than "few".
Gimelist
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-29T15:23:32.857Z
Why not just ask the question without mentioning creationists?
Matt Hall
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-29T16:05:48.150Z
@userLTK - The half-life of carbon 14 is 5730 years, not 57,000 years. 57000 years is almost ten half-lives, so about 0.1% of the original C14 atoms are left after 57000 years.
David Hammen
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-29T20:25:53.110Z
@DavidHammen, oops. You're right.   Should I delete?
userLTK
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-30T09:59:56.440Z
14C has far too short a half life for estimating the age of the Earth, so anyone making this claim obviously hasn't looked into it in much detail, presumably they use some other element with a longer half life (uranium?)
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-30T15:59:39.650Z
@DikranMarsupial Young Earth proponents claim a 6000ya Earth, so radiocarbon dating is relevant too.
Eubie Drew
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-10-31T13:52:46.540Z
Sure the lack of 14C in coal shows that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years old, but *nobody* uses radio*carbon* dating to establish the age of the earth, as in the claim ""The age of the Earth is based on a few radiocarbon measurements of dubious validity".
Dikran Marsupial
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-11-03T20:06:06.550Z
@Aabaakawad I am not sure I see why it is relevant what this sect claim, in the present context (unless OP's original post was edited and I was unaware). They actually claim a lot of thing that are hard to connect to current science, challenging without much backing  the fossil record, the Earth age etc... Some relevant info here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html, especially http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G1
marsisalie
<isotopic><dating>
How many $\ce{^{14}C}$ measurements have been made?
Gordon Stanger
# How many $\ce{^{14}C}$ measurements have been made?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-10-29)

I know that the upper limit of radiocarbon dating is typically about 60,000 years, but how many radiocarbon dates have actually been measured? As of October 2015, how many $^{14}\ce C$ (radiocarbon) measurements have been made worldwide, how many have been calibrated by historic dates, and what proportion of measurements have yielded inconsistent results?

**Tags:** isotopic, dating

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: You get 360000 results using "carbon 14 dating" on Google Scholar. Definitely more than "few".  
> **username_2**: Why not just ask the question without mentioning creationists?  
> **username_3**: @username_4 - The half-life of carbon 14 is 5730 years, not 57,000 years. 57000 years is almost ten half-lives, so about 0.1% of the original C14 atoms are left after 57000 years.  
> **username_4**: @username_3, oops. You're right.   Should I delete?  
> **username_5**: 14C has far too short a half life for estimating the age of the Earth, so anyone making this claim obviously hasn't looked into it in much detail, presumably they use some other element with a longer half life (uranium?)  
> **username_6**: @username_5 Young Earth proponents claim a 6000ya Earth, so radiocarbon dating is relevant too.  
> **username_5**: Sure the lack of 14C in coal shows that the Earth is much older than 6,000 years old, but *nobody* uses radio*carbon* dating to establish the age of the earth, as in the claim ""The age of the Earth is based on a few radiocarbon measurements of dubious validity".  
> **username_7**: @Aabaakawad I am not sure I see why it is relevant what this sect claim, in the present context (unless OP's original post was edited and I was unaware). They actually claim a lot of thing that are hard to connect to current science, challenging without much backing  the fossil record, the Earth age etc... Some relevant info here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood.html, especially http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-gc.html#G1  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2015-10-30. Score: 1

> How many have been validated by historic calibration, and what
> proportion (if any) yielded inconsistent results?

Often with an item that they want tested, a specific date isn't available so calibration isn't possible, but calibration can be done when dates are known. Tree rings are most common and (though I've not read of this being done), samples from dead bodies from a specific battle or disease outbreak where a date of death is known. Article [here](https://c14.arch.ox.ac.uk/embed.php?File=calibration.html) and [here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calibration_of_radiocarbon_dates).

The calibration curve represents changes in the amount of C-14 present in the atmosphere which is also a factor. There wouldn't be a charted curve if calibration hadn't been done quite extensively (see 2nd article above).

There's some room for bacterial or other [contamination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiocarbon_dating#Contamination), especially with older objects, and contamination has lead some inconsistent results but that's not because the theory isn't sound but because of miss-handling.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I'm fully aware of the methods, both for radiocarbon dating and for calibration. The question is about the actual statistics of measurement - how many, as opposed to the claim of just 'a few'?  

---

