You just said in your previous post that you are not using carbon dating. so why do you keep referring to C14 and carbon decay rates? If that is not carbon dating, or a form of it, what is it? that is the basis of carbon dating according to any textbook defintiion.

At any rate...

i really don't know about C14/C12 correlations but if they exist they exist, i dont see an issue with it.

the atmosphere, like earth and it's overall climate is not static. I wouldn't presume that the atmosphere in one place is going to give you the same exact CO2 reading as any other place on any given day. For instance, ther is more oxygen in the atmosphere at sea level, and less in mountains. There is more CO2 in parts of yellowstone park than there is in Jackson Hole wyoming, on any given same day. there is more CO2 and other acids in the air near volcanic activity. there is more CO2 in manhattan than there is in the amazon rainforest. etc etc.

meteorology is actually a science. They study the earth, atmospheric and oceanic currents, stuff like that and stuff related to that. You would find it quite interesting and a valuable asset to your knowledge base, which often lacks real tappable data evident today.

i guess depending on how saturated an item became with carbon during it's lifetime, the dates could vary widely and cause quite a number of distortions using a static dating method such as you are attempting to apply. even nutrients in the soil could contribute to saturation ability and likewise the abilty to lose it or retain it in a set amount of time. certain things that bind to carbon retain carbon longer. heat also affects carbon and other mineral retention. acids or highly akaline soils or waters play a role... likewise moisture from the atmosphere. there are truly an enormous amount of variables to offset an attempt at dating anything with static system that assumes invariable constants for something like carbon. you could take two pieces of charcoal from the same bag that you buy at the store... store one piece inside and put the other piece 15 feet away outside and in a few months time the one that is outside will have less carbon that the one protected from sun, heat and acid rain. you could do the same thing with a carrot. and if you base all your measurements on a new carrot the one you put outside a few months ago will appear measurably older. it'll look that way too. if it gets buried by dirt or it rains a lot that season that will also affect your measurement. etc etc etc so many possibilities.

Actually, the mummified body in the tub proves my point that mumification and petrification do not take hundreds or thousands of years to accomplish, just as i originally mentioned to you and repeatedly reiterated to linda who seems to think that if something is petrified it must be millions of years old. proves my point quite blatantly matter of fact. I hope we can stop arguing about it now. My honest opinion about the bog bodies is that some of them are quite young but no one wants to open murder or suicide investigations for things that are a few generations old. Throwing a dead body into a shallow mucky body of water and covering it with leaves and sticks happens today just like it did a thousand years ago. it settles into the mucky swamp, never floats up and never gets found till someone comes digging around when it's drier.