Posted on 12/17/2005 7:32:32 AM PST by Lonesome in Massachussets
Edited on 12/17/2005 8:31:35 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
Yeah, so much for that plan to dump radioactive materials into the Sun.
Too late! It's already polluted.
In Tibet . . . the monks . . .
Omigosh! Global Warming!!!
In her case, Global Worming...
You just failed to read the remarks before you made yours.
You're pretty feisty for a guy who's only been here a little over a month.
This is a good thing. I think I'm going to enjoy seeing your posts.
Welcome to FR!
I didn't know I was going to cause such a fuss.
As I stated earlier, I would have had not problem if the article simply stated that "scientists believed" this to be true, or the "scientists have concluded" that to be true.
And thanks for the welcome.
Aged rocker Sting has announced that mankind was destroying the Earth, but also the Sun as well. In protest, he recently held a benefit concert which featured his hit "King of Pain".
I thought one of the assumptions of C14 dating was that C14 production was constant, and therefore projectable backwards in time. This article seems to imply otherwise. What does this mean to C14 dating? Could some dates be too young if sunspots were few, or too old if sunspots were many?
Yeah, it's kinda funny the things that people pick up and run with.
Keeps you on you toes...
It tells the truth and then attempts to refute it because it conflicts with the global warming agenda.
And God sank the Spanish Armada because he did not deem the English worthy of receiving the true, apostolic, catholic faith.
Global warming is more ideology than scientific theory.
Science has devised many subtle methods for gethering data. This appeals to those who enjoy solving puzzles, who exercise and develop their powers of association.
I don't know why they can be bothered to care.
The Sun isn't even part of a major constellation.
Rummy's fault.
I agree with you, Babylon. They are lying to us again...to protect their eviro-agenda. It makes sense to me. Increased solar activity, not emissions here on earth. Compared to the power of the sun, it is nothing. Its the sun, not suv's.
The only link I saw missing was proof that increased sunspot activity increases C-14 levels. Was that an assumption or has it been demonstrated?
Aren't they all?
How does the C14 mechanism work? Is it that carbon is fixed in lifeforms thereby temporarily withdrawing it from the atmosphere and from solar effects and so changing the proportion of the C14 isotope compared to atmospheric carbon, but if atmospheric C14 is in higher concentration for some years the C14 dates would also be changed correspondingly? If increased sunspot activity increases C14 occurrance, that should show up in fossil remains that can be dated by other means such as dendrochronology.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.