Hindsite: They are not plants either.
ingliz: So?
Hindsite: I seriously doubt that.
ingliz: Why?
G. I. Lopez, An application of radiocarbon dating on the west coast of Vancouver Island (2012)The general trend is for conventional radiocarbon ages to be about 22% less than calendar ages.
Hindsite: You will be looking for a long time to find archaeological sites at the order of 30,000 or 40,000 years ago.
ingliz: Why?
A key period for archaeology is the period around 40,000 cal BP with the replacement of Neanderthals by anatomically modern humans (see e.g. Lowe et al. 2012).
Hindsite: I am pretty sure that is not going to happen.
ingliz: Why?
The general trend is for conventional radiocarbon ages to be about 22% less than calendar ages.
Hindsite: The following are things you failed to mention that were in your G. I. Lopez reference.
A practical limit for accurate dating is 26,000 years. And you can only guess when dating animals because bone is mostly hydroxy-apatitea a form of calcium phosphate.
If a sample shows a lower ratio of C-13 to C-12 than exists in the atmosphere, it is reasonable to expect that the amount of C-14 to C-12 has also been reduced, making the sample appear older than it actually is. This was not taken into account before 1990.
Also, he claims atomic bomb testing in the 1960s and 1970s artificially raised levels of C-14 in the atmosphere.
The conventional radiocarbon age has the assumption that C-14 reservoirs have remained constant through time.
Lakes and oceans act as reservoirs of carbon. The carbon content of a small lake may be only 20 years older than the carbon on the atmosphere, but in the ocean, the carbon may be many hundreds of years older. This will result in marine shells and foraminifera appearing to be older than they actually are.
Comparisons between the radiocarbon ages of wood and shell found at the same
location in ice-age deposits have shown differences in excess of 1000 years. (The fact that a worldwide flood may also effect radiocarbon dating has not been considered.)