Basically, carbon saying sounds like it is counting tree rings:
"Since the 1960s, researchers have mainly done this recalibration with trees, counting annual rings to get calendar dates and matching those with measured radiocarbon dates. The oldest single tree for which this has been done, a bristlecone pine from California, was about 5,000 years old. By matching up the relative widths of rings from one tree to another, including from bogs and historic buildings, the tree record has now been pushed back to 13,910 years ago."
One question, how are they able to push trees ring counting back 13,910 years, if the oldest tree they have counted was 5000 years old. The limit is 5000, right?
And another question, why was this tree only "about 5,000 years old"? They have the very tree, it is either possible to count the rings or not... So why are they rounding (up or down)?
"Since the 1960s, researchers have mainly done this recalibration with trees, counting annual rings to get calendar dates and matching those with measured radiocarbon dates. The oldest single tree for which this has been done, a bristlecone pine from California, was about 5,000 years old. By matching up the relative widths of rings from one tree to another, including from bogs and historic buildings, the tree record has now been pushed back to 13,910 years ago."
One question, how are they able to push trees ring counting back 13,910 years, if the oldest tree they have counted was 5000 years old. The limit is 5000, right?
And another question, why was this tree only "about 5,000 years old"? They have the very tree, it is either possible to count the rings or not... So why are they rounding (up or down)?