Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • Talk Rational: Serious Business, Serious Discussions.

Topic: RH Brown and Carbon 14 (Read 13980 times) previous topic - next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #25
"The OTHER part is that the carbon model of the biosphere coupled to the atmosphere is more like a bunch of buckets interconnected with little pumps pumping the water around, but ONLY the atmosphere bucket having the chlorine dripped into it."

 It doesn't appear to me that that makes a difference for the purpose of trying to understand the differences between the two competing views.
It does if your talking about equilibrium.  Each bucket will have a separate equilibrium value.

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #26
I was trying to explain the two conflicting views on carbon-14 to my son the other day who is studying to be an elementary school science teacher...  here's what I came up with...

Quote
I've always thought that if you can't explain something simply, then you probably don't understand it ... so here goes ...

Best way to explain Carbon 14 is with an analogy ... Imagine a 5 gallon bucket filled with clean water.  And a dripper above it with bleach dripping out of it into the bucket.  If you adjust the drip rate, you'll end up with an equilibrium in the bucket because chlorine is volatile and will evaporate out of the water ... let's say that 1 drop per minute ---> 1 ppm of chlorine in equilibrium in the water bucket.  The bleach is analogous to Carbon 14 being added to the atmosphere / biosphere, which is analogous to the water in the bucket.

EVOLUTIONIST VIEW
"There has always been 5 gallons of water in the bucket (same quantity of living biomass on earth) ... for millions of years.  And the chlorine drip rate has been 1 drop per minute for millions of years, so the ppm at the time of death of any organism is 1 ppm."

CREATIONIST VIEW
"Most of the 5 gallons got spilled out of the bucket (biomass got buried) at the time of the Flood leaving maybe a cupful of water (living biomass) in the bottom.  So the chlorine concentration will reach a new equilibrium ... say 100 ppm." 
This assumption is ALSO incorrect.  Buried (i.e. uncoupled) carbon sinks like oil/gas/shale/methane ice/etc. have ZERO concentration of 14C.  There is no trace concentration that represents some type of "sink" of carbon.

Also, if you look at the carbon cycle map you'll see that the active biosphere of plants and organics in the soil (mainly peat and permafrost frozen sinks) represent around 1700 Gigatons of Carbon.  The fossil fuel sink represents 4,000 Gigatons of carbon, only 2.4 times the present biosphere amount.

If your analogy above is correct, that biomass was buried during a world wide flood, then the NEW concentration would only go from 1ppm to 3.5ppm (NOT 100ppm).  So your scale is off by a factor of 30.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #27
Well at most it seems like you would have two buckets... The atmosphere and the living biosphere.  And this could be simplified to one bucket representing the living biosphere with the chlorine dripper representing the atmosphere.

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #28
Since Mike is fairly active here these days, I thought I would re-post this diagram from Brown's book and try to get my head around it again.


Dave,
Why is there a net increase in 14C formation rate from pre-flood to post-flood?
Why would 14C formation rate climb higher just after the flood then taper off 2,000 years ago?
Where was all this pre-flood carbon contained?  The claim by other YEC authors is 100x or more of the upper biosphere was buried, where is all this hidden biomass today?  It's never been "found" by present day geologists.

(And don't say "the asteroid belt" since the total mass out there is barely 3% of earth and only a tiny fraction is organic in nature; plus you and Wally Wonderpants have no mechanism to launch earth debris into an asteroid belt orbit)

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #29
 Seems that I recall that the sequestered carbon is much much higher than that.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #30
Quote
elementary school science teacher

this isn't a thing
What? I had one.
Right. And you also had a spelling and art teacher. And a history teacher. And they were all the same person.

Eta: unless you went to an unusual school. Anyway, elementary school students don't learn about fluid dynamics.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #31
Well at most it seems like you would have two buckets... The atmosphere and the living biosphere.  And this could be simplified to one bucket representing the living biosphere with the chlorine dripper representing the atmosphere.
You can't do that with the large variance in bucket sizes compared to the much smaller exchange of carbon between these buckets.

For example, the atmosphere has a turn-over of carbon every ~6 years (the flows in/out over 6 years equal the amount of carbon in the atmosphere).  however, in the other extreme, the deep ocean is a bucket 50 times the size of the atmosphere but the carbon exchange is about the same, so it's turn-over is every 400 years.

So you can't really lump all this together when you're trying to argue about equilibrium values found in different medium.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #32
"The OTHER part is that the carbon model of the biosphere coupled to the atmosphere is more like a bunch of buckets interconnected with little pumps pumping the water around, but ONLY the atmosphere bucket having the chlorine dripped into it."

 It doesn't appear to me that that makes a difference for the purpose of trying to understand the differences between the two competing views.
Um. It does.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #33
Quote
elementary school science teacher

this isn't a thing
What? I had one.
Right. And you also had a spelling and art teacher. And a history teacher. And they were all the same person.
No, we had a science teacher, an art teacher, a music teacher, and I think maybe one or two other specialized teachers who were all separate from our general studies teacher. We would see each of them once a week.

Eta: unless you went to an unusual school.
Well I did go to private school. Never considered that was an unusual setup. I'm guessing the better funded public schools probably have it too. I guess most don't?

Anyway, elementary school students don't learn about fluid dynamics.
That's true.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #34
Quote
elementary school science teacher

this isn't a thing
What? I had one.
Right. And you also had a spelling and art teacher. And a history teacher. And they were all the same person.
No, we had a science teacher, an art teacher, a music teacher, and I think maybe one or two other specialized teachers who were all separate from our general studies teacher. We would see each of them once a week.

Eta: unless you went to an unusual school.
Well I did go to private school. Never considered that was an unusual setup. I'm guessing the better funded public schools probably have it too. I guess most don't?

Anyway, elementary school students don't learn about fluid dynamics.
That's true.
It's not uncommon to have specialized art, p.e. and music in that once a week format but science is not typical.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #35
Well at most it seems like you would have two buckets... The atmosphere and the living biosphere.  And this could be simplified to one bucket representing the living biosphere with the chlorine dripper representing the atmosphere.

You also have the varves of Lake Kalksjon, Dave.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #36
So you're saying that Brown just pulled that black line out of his ass?
No, RHBrown modeled his system backwards.  His assumption was that a Flood occurred around 3,000 B.C. and that the 14C content of the atmosphere was near zero at that time.  he then just curve fit 14C:12C ratios that track back over 50,000 years into a ~5,000 year time span with some known and agreed upon intermediary archeological 14C:12C measured ratios.

In other words he started with the conclusion in mind.
Yeah, it's been a while since I read the story, but that is how I remember it. He picked points he liked on the graph and used standard curve-fit methods to produce his equation.

So, basically out of his ass.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • MikeS
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #37
Well at most it seems like you would have two buckets... The atmosphere and the living biosphere.  And this could be simplified to one bucket representing the living biosphere with the chlorine dripper representing the atmosphere.

You also have the varves of Lake Kalksjon, Dave.
Didn't those varves contain organic material that was 14C measured?
And didn't those 14C:12C ratios align sort of on a inverse power curve with layer number?
And didn't that inverse power curve resemble the decay rate of 14C?
And wasn't this trend apparent for the entire data set of Lake K?

Can Dave interpret the above items at all?

  • JonF
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #38
]So you can't really lump all this together when you're trying to argue about equilibrium values found in different medium.

Bet Davie's understanding of equilibrium is as good as his comprehension of nonlinear scaling.
"I would never consider my evaluation of his work to be fair minded unless I had actually read his own words." - Dave Hawkins

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #39
Well at most it seems like you would have two buckets... The atmosphere and the living biosphere.  And this could be simplified to one bucket representing the living biosphere with the chlorine dripper representing the atmosphere.

You also have the varves of Lake Kalksjon, Dave.
Didn't those varves contain organic material that was 14C measured?
And didn't those 14C:12C ratios align sort of on a inverse power curve with layer number?
And didn't that inverse power curve resemble the decay rate of 14C?
And wasn't this trend apparent for the entire data set of Lake K?

Can Dave interpret the above items at all?

No he can't.

He once came up with some bullshit idea that somehow the putative exponential post flood change in 14C:12C ratios somehow coincidentally matched a putative exponential reduction in the frequency of storms and that somehow those storms produced layers identical to those currently laid down seasonally, as the lake freezes over in winter and the snows melt in spring.

Even though he's got to accommodate an ice age in there somehow as well
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #40
]So you can't really lump all this together when you're trying to argue about equilibrium values found in different medium.

Bet Davie's understanding of equilibrium is as good as his comprehension of nonlinear scaling.
He pointed out that we are just using that term and that we don't know what it means either .
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #41
Well at most it seems like you would have two buckets... The atmosphere and the living biosphere.  And this could be simplified to one bucket representing the living biosphere with the chlorine dripper representing the atmosphere.

You also have the varves of Lake Kalksjon, Dave.
Didn't those varves contain organic material that was 14C measured?
And didn't those 14C:12C ratios align sort of on a inverse power curve with layer number?
And didn't that inverse power curve resemble the decay rate of 14C?
And wasn't this trend apparent for the entire data set of Lake K?

Can Dave interpret the above items at all?

No he can't.

He once came up with some bullshit idea that somehow the putative exponential post flood change in 14C:12C ratios somehow coincidentally matched a putative exponential reduction in the frequency of storms and that somehow those storms produced layers identical to those currently laid down seasonally, as the lake freezes over in winter and the snows melt in spring.

Even though he's got to accommodate an ice age in there somehow as well
Didn't he also say that the storm waves had an exponential decrease in frequency- i.e. wavelength changes along a curve?
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #42
Also, Dave, what sort of elementary school is he studying to teach science in? That's not a job that needs special science training anywhere that I am familiar with.
Love is like a magic penny
 if you hold it tight you won't have any
if you give it away you'll have so many
they'll be rolling all over the floor

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #43
Well at most it seems like you would have two buckets... The atmosphere and the living biosphere.  And this could be simplified to one bucket representing the living biosphere with the chlorine dripper representing the atmosphere.

You also have the varves of Lake Kalksjon, Dave.
Didn't those varves contain organic material that was 14C measured?
And didn't those 14C:12C ratios align sort of on a inverse power curve with layer number?
And didn't that inverse power curve resemble the decay rate of 14C?
And wasn't this trend apparent for the entire data set of Lake K?

Can Dave interpret the above items at all?

No he can't.

He once came up with some bullshit idea that somehow the putative exponential post flood change in 14C:12C ratios somehow coincidentally matched a putative exponential reduction in the frequency of storms and that somehow those storms produced layers identical to those currently laid down seasonally, as the lake freezes over in winter and the snows melt in spring.

Even though he's got to accommodate an ice age in there somehow as well
Didn't he also say that the storm waves had an exponential decrease in frequency- i.e. wavelength changes along a curve?

yeah, that too. He got amplitude and frequency muddled up.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #44
So you're saying that Brown just pulled that black line out of his ass?
No, RHBrown modeled his system backwards.  His assumption was that a Flood occurred around 3,000 B.C. and that the 14C content of the atmosphere was near zero at that time.  he then just curve fit 14C:12C ratios that track back over 50,000 years into a ~5,000 year time span with some known and agreed upon intermediary archeological 14C:12C measured ratios.

In other words he started with the conclusion in mind.
Yeah, it's been a while since I read the story, but that is how I remember it. He picked points he liked on the graph and used standard curve-fit methods to produce his equation.

So, basically out of his ass.

Well, to be fair, what he did was compute what the change rates would have to been, to make radiocarbon dating work with his Flood model.

And they can't have been that because Lake Kalksjon.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • VoxRat
  • wtactualf
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #45
Well, to be fair, what he did was compute what the change rates would have to been, to make radiocarbon dating work with his Flood model.
I gotta say...
To me, the difference between that and "pulled from his ass" is subtle.
"I understand Donald Trump better than many people because I really am a lot like him." - Dave Hawkins

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #46
Truth is out of style

  • osmanthus
  • Administrator
  • Fingerer of piglets
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #47
I was trying to explain the two conflicting views on carbon-14 to my son the other day who is studying to be an elementary school science teacher...  here's what I came up with...

Quote
I've always thought that if you can't explain something simply, then you probably don't understand it ...
You're really not very good at dealing with complex subjects.
Truth is out of style

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #48
So you're saying that Brown just pulled that black line out of his ass?

Do you think it's data?

It isn't.  It's the values he has to plug in to make radiocarbon dates give the dates he needs for the Flood, i.e. nothing older than about 4,000 years.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.

  • Pingu
Re: RH Brown and Carbon 14
Reply #49
"The OTHER part is that the carbon model of the biosphere coupled to the atmosphere is more like a bunch of buckets interconnected with little pumps pumping the water around, but ONLY the atmosphere bucket having the chlorine dripped into it."

 It doesn't appear to me that that makes a difference for the purpose of trying to understand the differences between the two competing views.

What makes the difference is that one fits the data and the other doesn't.

Lake Kalkjon, Dave.  Deal with it.
I have a Darwin-debased mind.