In his spare time, Stephen reads and writes novels.
He lives in Beijing with a beautiful wife and two lovely kids." data-title="Stephen Chen" data-html="true" data-template=" Radiocarbon dating, which is used to calculate the age of certain organic materials, has been found to be unreliable, and sometimes wildly so - a discovery that could upset previous studies on climate change, scientists from China and Germany said in a new paper.
Reliable estimates are possible, but with large /- factors.
Libby and a few of his students at the University of Chicago: in 1960, he won a Nobel Prize in Chemistry for the invention.All living things exchange the gas Carbon 14 (C14) with the atmosphere around them—animals and plants exchange Carbon 14 with the atmosphere, fish and corals exchange carbon with dissolved C14 in the water.Throughout the life of an animal or plant, the amount of C14 is perfectly balanced with that of its surroundings. The C14 in a dead organism slowly decays at a known rate: its "half life".Radiocarbon dating is one of the best known archaeological dating techniques available to scientists, and the many people in the general public have at least heard of it.But there are many misconceptions about how radiocarbon works and how reliable a technique it is.So, in other words, we have a pretty solid way to calibrate raw radiocarbon dates for the most recent 12,594 years of our planet's past.But before that, only fragmentary data is available, making it very difficult to definitively date anything older than 13,000 years.Beginning in the 1990s, a coalition of researchers led by Paula J.Reimer of the CHRONO Centre for Climate, the Environment and Chronology, at Queen's University Belfast, began building an extensive dataset and calibration tool that they first called CALIB.The latest curves were ratified at the 21st International Radiocarbon Conference in July of 2012.Within the last few years, a new potential source for further refining radiocarbon curves is Lake Suigetsu in Japan.