Thanks for the help SoSick
If you are not using carbon dating you should probably stop referring to C14,
Why? The existing level of carbon-14 in samples is a physical fact, part of the evidence of reality. Whether you understand carbon dating or not, you should be able to understand that different samples have different amounts of C-14, and that because C-14 decays (whatever the rate of decay is or has been) that there is less of it in old samples than in fresh ones.
The fact remains that there is a correlation between the ages of the tree rings and the ratios of C-14 to C-12 and that the same correlation occurs in all the different tree ring chronologies, and that it is seen again in the samples from the Lake Suigetsu varves.
Given that the amount of C-14/C-12 is different at different ages for the samples, how can that correlation occur at the same level and age?
makes sense. especially if they grew at the same time. I really had to think hard about that one. I think you forgot to mention though... in the same place.
Actually what you want is them all getting carbon from the same source -- in this case from the atmosphere. This is called a "reservoir" where the level of C-14 to C-12 is the same throughout the reservoir, but different reservoirs can have different proportions.
When we are talking about trees growing on the peaks of the Sierra Nevadas and in Ireland and in Germany we are talking about trees that all get their carbon from the same source - the atmosphere.
Did you know that trees grow bigger faster in Central Park than they do central rural missouri? Do you know why?
Probably higher levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The weather channel actually has some pretty informative shows. Some very respected meteorologists chiming in too.
I'm sure. I'm also sure that it is not a scientific journal and that a degree in meteorology does not make you an expert on everything.
I realize you are smarter than all of them though.
I'm not a meteorologist, so I'm sure they know some things I don't.
I found this in the news, a mumified body, part skeletal remains, part mummy, ...
Which just disproves your comments about death and decay, again.
Enjoy.
[color:"green"]
Note: my time is limited, so I only choose threads of particular interest to me and I cannot guarantee a reply to all responses (particularly if they do not discuss the issue/s),
and I expect other people to do the same. Thank you for your consideration.[/color]
