4 ms·
Carbon dating is only supposed to be accurate to about 40,000 years ago. They must be using some other method to date it, but I didn't see in the article where
by bguebert 5y ago
Carbon dating is only supposed to be accurate to about 40,000 years ago. They must be using some other method to date it, but I didn't see in the article where they say what method was used.
- athl 5y agoIn the study linked in the article, this is written: "depositional age is known through litho- and chemostratigraphic correlation with the 892 ± 13-Ma (Re–Os black shale) Boot Inlet Formation (Shaler Supergroup (Sg)), together with other geochronological constraints"
- samstave 5y agoMay you please ELI5 -- I am super fascinated by this, but I cannot decipher how to to understand this sentence.
- repler 5y agoThe age of the rocks it was found in.
- smhenderson 5y agoOK, sure, makes sense. But how do they know how old the rocks are? If not by carbon dating that is...
- dharmab 5y agohttps://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-rocks-and-fossils-using-geologic-methods-107924044/ https://www.nature.com/scitable/knowledge/library/dating-roc... This page has a table of different dating methods that work on minerals and the time ranges to which they are accurate.
- AlotOfReading 5y agoThe "Re-Os" bit indicates that it was Rhenium-Osmium dating of black shale (a sedimentary rock commonly found on paleo-coastlines) in the formation. One of the major differences between the paleontologists and archaeologists is their opinion of shale and other mudstones. Paleontologists love the stuff, archaeologists hate it.
- Tagbert 5y agoGeologists and paleontologist usually use multiple methods to estimate age. Carbon works well for young deposits. Uranium dating can be used for much older materials. As AlotOfReading mentioned Rhenium-Osmium. Sometimes they can use Oxygen ratios in inclusions in Zircon crystals. There are other more specialized measures. Using multiple methods can help calibrate each other.
- smhenderson 5y agoThanks everyone, very interesting and probably worth further reading!