🚀 go-pugleaf

Jim Meritt wrote:
 
> Is there a way to determine specific prehistoric weather events?  Not
> climate.  I know about pollen, isotope balances in shells and such but I'm
> looking for (fossilized?) indicators of specific weterological events.

Some of things you 'know' about climate are no more accurate
than the observations at AWS.  No one was around then, so
any inferences are uncertain, but many people now speak
of them as if they are fact.  Thus, many students become
confused, some of which admittedly are extremely so when
they are older and even teaching classes.

Maybe you can watch the Flinstones :)

> For example, I am aware of dinosaur footprints in mud.  Are there any
> fossilized craters caused by raindrops in mud?

I'm looking for a live dinosaur so we can give the land
back to them instead of the Indians ;)


Joseph

In article <33A5AE62.48482D16@miningco.com>,
Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
>Jim Meritt wrote:
>> For example, I am aware of dinosaur footprints in mud.  Are there any
>> fossilized craters caused by raindrops in mud?
>
>I'm looking for a live dinosaur so we can give the land
>back to them instead of the Indians ;)


Seems like an interesting question to me. Why the flippant
response?
--
packer@clark.net
http://www.clark.net/pub/whatnews/whatnews.html

In article <5o3cv3$9ga@elf.wang.com>, merittj@wangfed.com (Jim Meritt) wrote:

> Is there a way to determine specific prehistoric weather events?  Not 
> climate.  I know about pollen, isotope balances in shells and such but I'm 
> looking for (fossilized?) indicators of specific weterological events.  
> 
> For example, I am aware of dinosaur footprints in mud.  Are there any 
> fossilized craters caused by raindrops in mud?


   I've heard that Australia's 11-year cycle of desert rainy seasons can
be tracked back for thousands of years by examining sediments.
   Volcanic eruptions are dated from ash deposits over glaciers as well as
normal carbon dating methods.
   In the American west, wet and dry cycles have been traced back over ten
thousand years by examining rings on living and dead bristlecone pines.


> James W. Meritt
> The opinions expressed above are my own.  The fact simply
> are and belong to none.

- Mike.    +--+--+

Scott Erb: university professor and thief at-large, wrote:
<5maaac$27l8$4@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scotterb@maine.maine.edu

"If someone needs to take something from someone who is wealthy
in order to survive, it would be morally just to do so."

"I'll just rely on the force of government to keep you guys in line
and paying your taxes.  Whine away on the internet if you feel better."

In article <5o4rde$mh0@clarknet.clark.net>, packer@clark.net (Charles
Packer) wrote:

> In article <33A5AE62.48482D16@miningco.com>,
> Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
> >Jim Meritt wrote:
> >> For example, I am aware of dinosaur footprints in mud.  Are there any
> >> fossilized craters caused by raindrops in mud?
> >
> >I'm looking for a live dinosaur so we can give the land
> >back to them instead of the Indians ;)
> 
> Seems like an interesting question to me. Why the flippant
> response?


   Gives 'm character.  ;-)

- Mike.    +--+--+

Scott Erb: university professor and thief at-large, wrote:
<5maaac$27l8$4@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scotterb@maine.maine.edu

"If someone needs to take something from someone who is wealthy
in order to survive, it would be morally just to do so."

"I'll just rely on the force of government to keep you guys in line
and paying your taxes.  Whine away on the internet if you feel better."

In article <5o4rde$mh0@clarknet.clark.net>, packer@clark.net says...
>In article <33A5AE62.48482D16@miningco.com>,
>Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
>>Jim Meritt wrote:
>>> For example, I am aware of dinosaur footprints in mud.  Are there any
>>> fossilized craters caused by raindrops in mud?

>>I'm looking for a live dinosaur so we can give the land
>>back to them instead of the Indians ;)
>
>Seems like an interesting question to me. Why the flippant
>response?

It appears that he had no knowledge to add, but a fascination with
the "I am important!  Listen to ME!!!!" compulsion predominant.  Not uncommon
with small children.  Most outgrow it.  Don't worry about him.  I shall not.


-- 
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own.  The fact simply
are and belong to none.

Charles Packer wrote:

> Seems like an interesting question to me. Why the flippant
> response?

I'm not gonna anwser all of such inquiries regarding such
posts, but people speak of such things as if they are so
certain when & how they happened, and they aren't.  They'll
try using other unrelated things to attempt to convince
people of what they claim.  No one knows about the past
as well as some people claim.


Joseph

In article <33A6CE6D.3B475EC5@miningco.com>,
Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
>Charles Packer wrote:
>
>> Seems like an interesting question to me. Why the flippant
>> response?
>
>I'm not gonna anwser all of such inquiries regarding such
>posts, but people speak of such things as if they are so
>certain when & how they happened, and they aren't.  They'll
>try using other unrelated things to attempt to convince
>people of what they claim.  No one knows about the past
>as well as some people claim.


	Details, please.

	Just who are you accusing of stupidity and/or lying?

William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University

William Hyde wrote:

>         Details, please.
> 
>         Just who are you accusing of stupidity and/or lying?

If I said 'you', I'd get a few laughs, but I refer to each
person who says things such as 60 million years ago...
occurred, as if such is fact.  You may say I'm only being
'picky' regarding grammar, but such talk continually
confirms theories such that something which is greatly
questionable becomes fact.

Regarding my analogy with inaccurate weather observations,
I understand that they are unrelated and that nothing
about estimation of past climates should be infered.  If
I did so, I'd be doing the same thing they are :)

I cannot think of any specific examples now, other than
I've noticed that some carbon dating techniques were
later shown to be very inaccurate, other things occurred
which weren't previously considered, etc.  This is not my
specialty, so I'm unaware of many verification techniques,
but someday I think other beings will tell us *exactly*
what happened and when.  If that does, I expect many things
currently believed will be proven wrong.  Some people
claim such things have already occurred, and frankly I
find their stories less unbelievable :)


Joseph

Jim Meritt wrote:

> It appears that he had no knowledge to add, but a fascination with
> the "I am important!  Listen to ME!!!!" compulsion predominant.  Not uncommon
> with small children.  Most outgrow it.  Don't worry about him.  I shall not.

You're just playing games with words - anyone can understand
what my comments mean.


Joseph

In article <33A7A2A2.B74682DE@miningco.com>, weather.guide@miningco.com 
says...

>Jim Meritt wrote:

>> It appears that he had no knowledge to add, but a fascination with
>> the "I am important!  Listen to ME!!!!" compulsion predominant.  Not 
uncommon
>> with small children.  Most outgrow it.  Don't worry about him.  I shall 
not.

>You're just playing games with words - anyone can understand
>what my comments mean.


Yes, they can.  As well as the meaning behind them.

More is the pity.


-- 
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own.  The fact simply
are and belong to none.

William Hyde wrote:

>         Twenty thousand years ago, a large ice sheet covered
>         most of North America.
> 
>         Now, I just said that.  Feel free to contradict, if
>         you have any contrary evidence.

This is probably true though.


Joseph

William Hyde wrote:

> 
>         Details, please.  I suspect that you are parroting
>         a questionable source.  I'm quite sure that you
>         yourself do not understand C-14 dating.

C14 is an isotope of Carbon caused by cosmic rays.  It has a half-
life of approximately 5600 years.  Normal C12 does not radioactively
decay.  People assume a specific amount of C14 was present a long,
long time ago without much justification, and compare that to what
is presently possibly accurately measured in core samples and fossils.
The C14:C12 ratio supposedly indicates age...and I don't care :)

>         "I made a claim impugning the honesty and
>         competence of a large group of people, but I
>         have not a shred of evidence for my claim."

If a person says something is true without knowing so, they
are lying at worst and exaggerating at best.  According to
mathematical standards, none of such things we are discussing
have been proved.

>         Some things currently believed will be proven
>         wrong in the next month.  That's science, a
>         process you do not seem to understand, probably because
>         of your hostility towards it.

Then the people who spoke of them as if they were certain would
have been incorrect.
 
>         Given that it is pretty clear you have never bothered
>         to study the reasoning you criticize, your preference
>         for fantasy is natural.

This assumption is incorrect like many of the theories.  *The
real truth about this matter is that people studying past
climates can get more funding convincing people their theories
are true*.  We can spend our money better ways.


Joseph

In article <33A801D9.4DB255F8@miningco.com>,
Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
>William Hyde wrote:
>
>> 
>>         Details, please.  I suspect that you are parroting
>>         a questionable source.  I'm quite sure that you
>>         yourself do not understand C-14 dating.
>
>C14 is an isotope of Carbon caused by cosmic rays.  It has a half-
>life of approximately 5600 years.  Normal C12 does not radioactively
>decay.  People assume a specific amount of C14 was present a long,
>long time ago without much justification,


	You seem to think that there is some sort of
	comsipiracy here, whereas the problem of fluctuating
	amounts of C-14 has been known since day one, and methods
	to deal with it devised.

	Do you know just how much the error in this assumption
	will change dates (hint - not as much as you think)?

	Do you know about calibration of C-14 dating with
	dendrochronological and uranium series dating?

	Do you know when C-14 is and is not used?


 and compare that to what
>is presently possibly accurately measured in core samples and fossils.

	C-14 is not commonly used to date fossils.  Most
	fossils are far too old for this method to work.

>The C14:C12 ratio supposedly indicates age...and I don't care :)

	You don't care ... but you post serious accusations.

>
>>         "I made a claim impugning the honesty and
>>         competence of a large group of people, but I
>>         have not a shred of evidence for my claim."
>
>If a person says something is true without knowing so, they
>are lying at worst and exaggerating at best.  According to
>mathematical standards, none of such things we are discussing
>have been proved.

	Nice evasion of the issue.  In science, nothing is
	ever proven - that only happens in Mathematics.
	The theory of relativity, theory of gravity,
	quantum theory, theory of evolution, first law of
	thermodynamics, second law... none of them are
	"proven".

	But we can show things to be true "beyond a reasonable
	doubt".  We then speak of those things as "true".

	So, do you still accuse us of lying?

>
>>         Some things currently believed will be proven
>>         wrong in the next month.  That's science, a
>>         process you do not seem to understand, probably because
>>         of your hostility towards it.
>
>Then the people who spoke of them as if they were certain would
>have been incorrect.

	*If* they spoke of them as certain.  Though the media
	does not like it, a degree of uncertainty applies
	to all scientific statements.

	But some things we do know beyond a reasonable doubt.

> 
>>         Given that it is pretty clear you have never bothered
>>         to study the reasoning you criticize, your preference
>>         for fantasy is natural.
>
>This assumption is incorrect like many of the theories.

	I think the assumption is working rather well.  You have
	certainly demonstrated no knowledge of this work despite
	my invitation to demonstrate your competence in this
	area.

  *The
>real truth about this matter is that people studying past
>climates can get more funding convincing people their theories
>are true*.

	Also false.  If we could demonstrate that our ideas
	were all *true*, we'd get no further funding, because the
	problem would have been solved.

	I have written several successful grant applications.
	You have to convince the referees:

		(1) That the problem is important

		(2) That current knowledge is inadequate

		(3) That your approach has a good chance of
		solving the problem.


  We can spend our money better ways.

	The Know-Nothing party used to be quite popular.
	Maybe you could revive it.

William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University

In article <33A801D9.4DB255F8@miningco.com>,
Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
>William Hyde wrote:
>
>> 
>>         Details, please.  I suspect that you are parroting
>>         a questionable source.  I'm quite sure that you
>>         yourself do not understand C-14 dating.
>
>C14 is an isotope of Carbon caused by cosmic rays.  It has a half-
>life of approximately 5600 years.  Normal C12 does not radioactively
>decay.  People assume a specific amount of C14 was present a long,
>long time ago without much justification, and compare that to what
>is presently possibly accurately measured in core samples and fossils.
>The C14:C12 ratio supposedly indicates age...and I don't care :)

	This indicates a passing familiarity with the process, but nothing
that invalidates either the process or the assumptions behind it.  Why do
you feel that carbon dating has no values (assumed by your statement
"...and I don't care"?

>
>>         "I made a claim impugning the honesty and
>>         competence of a large group of people, but I
>>         have not a shred of evidence for my claim."
>
>If a person says something is true without knowing so, they
>are lying at worst and exaggerating at best.  According to
>mathematical standards, none of such things we are discussing
>have been proved.

	No one said they had been proven.  Wiliiam Hyde was simply pointing
out that the pricipals and explanations we invoke satisfy Occam's Razor in
that they constitute the simplest of various conflicting explanations.
And, I gently remind you that mathematics can only prove things within the
bounding context of fundamental assumptions about mathematics.  There are
axioms in mathematics that preclude proof because they constitute the
founding pricipals of mathematics.

>
>>         Some things currently believed will be proven
>>         wrong in the next month.  That's science, a
>>         process you do not seem to understand, probably because
>>         of your hostility towards it.
>
>Then the people who spoke of them as if they were certain would
>have been incorrect.

	Anyone who speaks about our current physics understanding as
absolute is clearly in error.  As is anyone who discounts our current
physical understand because they are not absolute.  Our understanding, and
so science, is evolutionary.

> 
>>         Given that it is pretty clear you have never bothered
>>         to study the reasoning you criticize, your preference
>>         for fantasy is natural.
>
>This assumption is incorrect like many of the theories.

	I don't think you, or anyone else, knows for certain what parts of
which theories are incorrect.  That they are *incomplete* is certain, but
they may be quite correct as far as they go.  And, if they serve us in our
understanding, they are functioning as intended.

>  *The
>real truth about this matter is that people studying past
>climates can get more funding convincing people their theories
>are true*.  We can spend our money better ways.

	I honestly don't think any reputable paleoclimatologist will say
their results constitute "truth".  They will say that, within certain
limiting conditions -- which are subject to debate -- they constitute the
best available explanations, but they do not constitute truth.

	"We can spend our money better" is true only within the context of
limiting assumptions about what is important.  Clearly, you feel
paleoclimate research is umimportant.  The key question is: *why* do you
feel such research is unimportant?  On *what* can our money be better spent
and *why*?

Kim Elmore, NSSL/Univ. of Okla.
My views are mine; NSSL and OU must get their own.

In article <5o97ev$llt@rossby.tamu.edu>, hyde@rossby.tamu.edu says...
>In article <33A801D9.4DB255F8@miningco.com>,
 
>>is presently possibly accurately measured in core samples and fossils.
>
>        C-14 is not commonly used to date fossils.  Most
>        fossils are far too old for this method to work.

Minor detail that most fossils are molds of the original organic material and 
there isn't any of the original carbon left to date seems to have escaped 
here.  Now, bugs trapped in amber are different...

-- 
James W. Meritt
The opinions expressed above are my own.  The fact simply
are and belong to none.

Joseph Bartlo wrote:
> 
> If a person says something is true without knowing so, they
> are lying at worst and exaggerating at best.  According to
> mathematical standards, none of such things we are discussing
> have been proved.

You are therefore indicting all of modern science.  Many things we
"know" are merely inferences drawn from a self-consistent body of data. 
Of course, some day someone may find data that contradict the current
model.  However, at any given time, it is reasonable to speak of the
current model as "the truth".  To do otherwise and add caveats to all
statements would be ridiculous and make conversation impossible. 
Consider the sentence "The sun will come up tomorrow morning."  This is
not mathematically provable according to your standards.  However, what
would you think of someone that says:  "All the data so far point to the
fact that the sun rises every morning, and so by extension, we believe
that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.  However, we have not proven
this with a high enough degree of certainty to accept it as a fact that
it will rise tomorrow morning."

	Eric Lucas

This whole ridiculous thread started when someone innocently wanted to
know of paleontological evidence of specific weather events (as opposed
to seasonal climatic conditions)--fossilized raindrop prints in the mud,
for example.  Mr. Bartlo, out of the blue before anyone could answer,
essentially said "No one can know of past weather events because no one
can prove that they happened.  Anyone that claims to is lying."

Let's warp back in time and assume that the original question was
phrased:  "Are there any instances of paleontological artifacts that
scientists believe, to the best of their knowledge, to have been caused
by specific weather events (as opposed to climatic conditions.)" 
....which is what the original poster obviously intended in the first
place.  

There, now maybe we can get back to a discussion of something
*interesting* and germaine to ne.weather and others groups involved in
this thread.

	Eric Lucas

Kim Elmore wrote:
> 
> In article <33A801D9.4DB255F8@miningco.com>,
> Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
> >William Hyde wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>         Details, please.  I suspect that you are parroting
> >>         a questionable source.  I'm quite sure that you
> >>         yourself do not understand C-14 dating.
> >
> >C14 is an isotope of Carbon caused by cosmic rays.  It has a half-
> >life of approximately 5600 years.  Normal C12 does not radioactively
> >decay.  People assume a specific amount of C14 was present a long,
> >long time ago without much justification, and compare that to what
> >is presently possibly accurately measured in core samples and fossils.
> >The C14:C12 ratio supposedly indicates age...and I don't care :)
> 
>         This indicates a passing familiarity with the process, but nothing
> that invalidates either the process or the assumptions behind it.  Why do
> you feel that carbon dating has no values (assumed by your statement
> "...and I don't care"?
> 
> >
> >>         "I made a claim impugning the honesty and
> >>         competence of a large group of people, but I
> >>         have not a shred of evidence for my claim."
> >
> >If a person says something is true without knowing so, they
> >are lying at worst and exaggerating at best.  According to
> >mathematical standards, none of such things we are discussing
> >have been proved.
> 
>         No one said they had been proven.  Wiliiam Hyde was simply pointing
> out that the pricipals and explanations we invoke satisfy Occam's Razor in
> that they constitute the simplest of various conflicting explanations.
> And, I gently remind you that mathematics can only prove things within the
> bounding context of fundamental assumptions about mathematics.  There are
> axioms in mathematics that preclude proof because they constitute the
> founding pricipals of mathematics.
> 
> >
> >>         Some things currently believed will be proven
> >>         wrong in the next month.  That's science, a
> >>         process you do not seem to understand, probably because
> >>         of your hostility towards it.
> >
> >Then the people who spoke of them as if they were certain would
> >have been incorrect.
> 
>         Anyone who speaks about our current physics understanding as
> absolute is clearly in error.  As is anyone who discounts our current
> physical understand because they are not absolute.  Our understanding, and
> so science, is evolutionary.
> 
> >
> >>         Given that it is pretty clear you have never bothered
> >>         to study the reasoning you criticize, your preference
> >>         for fantasy is natural.
> >
> >This assumption is incorrect like many of the theories.
> 
>         I don't think you, or anyone else, knows for certain what parts of
> which theories are incorrect.  That they are *incomplete* is certain, but
> they may be quite correct as far as they go.  And, if they serve us in our
> understanding, they are functioning as intended.
> 
> >  *The
> >real truth about this matter is that people studying past
> >climates can get more funding convincing people their theories
> >are true*.  We can spend our money better ways.
> 
>         I honestly don't think any reputable paleoclimatologist will say
> their results constitute "truth".  They will say that, within certain
> limiting conditions -- which are subject to debate -- they constitute the
> best available explanations, but they do not constitute truth.
> 
>         "We can spend our money better" is true only within the context of
> limiting assumptions about what is important.  Clearly, you feel
> paleoclimate research is umimportant.  The key question is: *why* do you
> feel such research is unimportant?  On *what* can our money be better spent
> and *why*?
> 
> Kim Elmore, NSSL/Univ. of Okla.
> My views are mine; NSSL and OU must get their own.

In sci.archaeology, on thread _Re: weather indicator_, Joseph Bartlo
<weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:

>William Hyde wrote:
>
>> 
>>         Details, please.  I suspect that you are parroting
>>         a questionable source.  I'm quite sure that you
>>         yourself do not understand C-14 dating.
>
>C14 is an isotope of Carbon caused by cosmic rays.  It has a half-
>life of approximately 5600 years.  Normal C12 does not radioactively
>decay.  People assume a specific amount of C14 was present a long,
>long time ago without much justification, and compare that to what
>is presently possibly accurately measured in core samples and fossils.
>The C14:C12 ratio supposedly indicates age...and I don't care :)

IOW, you are saying something is so without knowing so.  As I
understand it, there are those who would say you are lying at worst
and exaggerating at best. For your information, there is plenty of
justification for the claims of amounts of C14 available. 

>
>>         "I made a claim impugning the honesty and
>>         competence of a large group of people, but I
>>         have not a shred of evidence for my claim."
>
>If a person says something is true without knowing so, they
>are lying at worst and exaggerating at best.  According to
>mathematical standards, none of such things we are discussing
>have been proved.

Since none of us are discussing mathematics, this is a non sequitur.
If we are, however, discussing science, the proof has no place in the
discussion.

>
>>         Some things currently believed will be proven
>>         wrong in the next month.  That's science, a
>>         process you do not seem to understand, probably because
>>         of your hostility towards it.
>
>Then the people who spoke of them as if they were certain would
>have been incorrect.

So? Do you have a specific example. Error bars, so to speak, do not
mean that all statements are equally true.
> 
>>         Given that it is pretty clear you have never bothered
>>         to study the reasoning you criticize, your preference
>>         for fantasy is natural.
>
>This assumption is incorrect like many of the theories.  *The
>real truth about this matter is that people studying past
>climates can get more funding convincing people their theories
>are true*.  We can spend our money better ways.
>
Could you please supply some information to back up your statements.
Otherwise I would suspect that you are exaggerating at best and lying
at worst.

Matt Silberstein
-------------------------------

Rossignol's curious, albeit simply titled book, 'The Origins of a
World War', spoke in terms of 'secret treaties', drawn up between the
Ambassadors from Plutonia and Desdinova the foreign minister.  These
treaties founded a secret science from the stars.  Astronomy.  The
career of evil.

Eric Lucas wrote:

> You are therefore indicting all of modern science.  Many things we
> "know" are merely inferences drawn from a self-consistent body of data.
> Of course, some day someone may find data that contradict the current
> model.  However, at any given time, it is reasonable to speak of the
> current model as "the truth".  To do otherwise and add caveats to all
> statements would be ridiculous and make conversation impossible.
> Consider the sentence "The sun will come up tomorrow morning."  This is
> not mathematically provable according to your standards.  However, what
> would you think of someone that says:  "All the data so far point to the
> fact that the sun rises every morning, and so by extension, we believe
> that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.  However, we have not proven
> this with a high enough degree of certainty to accept it as a fact that
> it will rise tomorrow morning."

Fine, but I perceive this as being more like a question of
whether skies will be sunny or cloudy - we're not always
right about that !


Joseph

Kim Elmore wrote:

>         This indicates a passing familiarity with the process, but nothing
> that invalidates either the process or the assumptions behind it.  Why do
> you feel that carbon dating has no values (assumed by your statement
> "...and I don't care"?

That was a long time ago - it's not relevant to me.  Perhaps
we can learn things which can help us during the near future.
That's why it never became more than 'a passing familiarity' ;)

>         No one said they had been proven.  Wiliiam Hyde was simply pointing
> out that the pricipals and explanations we invoke satisfy Occam's Razor in
> that they constitute the simplest of various conflicting explanations.

Yeah - his razor too I suppose :)

> And, I gently remind you that mathematics can only prove things within the
> bounding context of fundamental assumptions about mathematics.  There are
> axioms in mathematics that preclude proof because they constitute the
> founding pricipals of mathematics.

True.  Similar standards can be used though.


Joseph

Jim Meritt wrote:

> More is the pity.

That depends who you mean.


Joseph

Jim Meritt (merittj@wangfed.com) wrote:
: In article <5o4rde$mh0@clarknet.clark.net>, packer@clark.net says...
: >In article <33A5AE62.48482D16@miningco.com>,
: >Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
: >>Jim Meritt wrote:
: >>> For example, I am aware of dinosaur footprints in mud.  Are there any
: >>> fossilized craters caused by raindrops in mud?
: 
: >>I'm looking for a live dinosaur so we can give the land
: >>back to them instead of the Indians ;)
: >
: >Seems like an interesting question to me. Why the flippant
: >response?
: 
: It appears that he had no knowledge to add, but a fascination with
: the "I am important!  Listen to ME!!!!" compulsion predominant.  Not uncommon
: with small children.  Most outgrow it.  Don't worry about him.  I shall not.


Seems to me that he was raising the question as to who the
"original" occupants of the land really were.  

    ----- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

In article <33ac671a.7893215@nntp.ix.netcom.com>, matts2@ix.netcom.com
(Matt Silberstein) wrote:

> In sci.archaeology, on thread _Re: weather indicator_, Joseph Bartlo
> <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
> 
> >William Hyde wrote:
> >
> >> 
> >>         Details, please.  I suspect that you are parroting
> >>         a questionable source.  I'm quite sure that you
> >>         yourself do not understand C-14 dating.
> >
> >C14 is an isotope of Carbon caused by cosmic rays.  It has a half-
> >life of approximately 5600 years.  Normal C12 does not radioactively
> >decay.  People assume a specific amount of C14 was present a long,
> >long time ago without much justification, and compare that to what
> >is presently possibly accurately measured in core samples and fossils.
> >The C14:C12 ratio supposedly indicates age...and I don't care :)
> 
> IOW, you are saying something is so without knowing so.  As I
> understand it, there are those who would say you are lying at worst
> and exaggerating at best. For your information, there is plenty of
> justification for the claims of amounts of C14 available. 


   Appologies if this is already answered in later posts in the thread...


   All living creatures possess Carbon 14 and Carbon 12 isotopes in a
uniformly constant ratio. After death, Carbon 14 in the remains decays,
altering the ratio. Carbon-14 dating is useful in analyzing living-origin
organic material (and infer the age of materials in the same deposit),
back to such-and-such a time as the amount of C-14 remaining is so low
that statistical deviation of such minute amounts degrades accuracy.
   Other dating methods are then used.


- Mike.    +--+--+

Scott Erb: university professor and thief at-large, wrote:
<5maaac$27l8$4@sol.caps.maine.edu>, scotterb@maine.maine.edu

"If someone needs to take something from someone who is wealthy
in order to survive, it would be morally just to do so."

"I'll just rely on the force of government to keep you guys in line
and paying your taxes.  Whine away on the internet if you feel better."

In article <33A87858.D795CBDD@miningco.com>,
Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
>Eric Lucas wrote:
>
>> You are therefore indicting all of modern science.  Many things we
>> "know" are merely inferences drawn from a self-consistent body of data.
>> Of course, some day someone may find data that contradict the current
>> model.  However, at any given time, it is reasonable to speak of the
>> current model as "the truth".  To do otherwise and add caveats to all
>> statements would be ridiculous and make conversation impossible.
>> Consider the sentence "The sun will come up tomorrow morning."  This is
>> not mathematically provable according to your standards.  However, what
>> would you think of someone that says:  "All the data so far point to the
>> fact that the sun rises every morning, and so by extension, we believe
>> that the sun will rise tomorrow morning.  However, we have not proven
>> this with a high enough degree of certainty to accept it as a fact that
>> it will rise tomorrow morning."
>
>Fine, but I perceive this as being more like a question of
>whether skies will be sunny or cloudy - we're not always
>right about that !

	There is no logical connection between our skill in
	forcasting the future and our ability to measure the
	past.

	Your comparison is meaningless.

William Hyde
Dept of Oceanography
Texas A&M University

gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:

> Jim Meritt (merittj@wangfed.com) wrote:
> : In article <5o4rde$mh0@clarknet.clark.net>, packer@clark.net says...
> : >In article <33A5AE62.48482D16@miningco.com>,
> : >Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
> : >>Jim Meritt wrote:
> : >>> For example, I am aware of dinosaur footprints in mud.  Are there any
> : >>> fossilized craters caused by raindrops in mud?
> : 
> : >>I'm looking for a live dinosaur so we can give the land
> : >>back to them instead of the Indians ;)
> : >
> : >Seems like an interesting question to me. Why the flippant
> : >response?
> : 
> : It appears that he had no knowledge to add, but a fascination with
> : the "I am important!  Listen to ME!!!!" compulsion predominant.  Not uncommon
> : with small children.  Most outgrow it.  Don't worry about him.  I shall not.
> 
> 
> Seems to me that he was raising the question as to who the
> "original" occupants of the land really were.  

The answer: bugs.  Lots of 'em.  That's why those fish tried to
crawl on land in the first place -- there were so many bugs that
until then had no reason to defend themselves against large land
predators that they didn't move very fast and were easy for any
fish willing and able to stay out of water awhile to feast on.
At least, this is my highly uneducated guess.

And, sure enough, we're doing The Right Thing, giving all our land
back to bugs.

After all, look at how many copies of Microsoft products are sold!  ;-)
-- 

"Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful."
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson    burley@gnu.ai.mit.edu

Craig Burley (burley@tweedledumb.cygnus.com) wrote:
: gans@scholar.nyu.edu (Paul J. Gans) writes:
: 
: > Jim Meritt (merittj@wangfed.com) wrote:
: > : In article <5o4rde$mh0@clarknet.clark.net>, packer@clark.net says...
: > : >In article <33A5AE62.48482D16@miningco.com>,
: > : >Joseph Bartlo  <weather.guide@miningco.com> wrote:
: > : >>Jim Meritt wrote:
: > : >>> For example, I am aware of dinosaur footprints in mud.  Are there any
: > : >>> fossilized craters caused by raindrops in mud?
: > : 
: > : >>I'm looking for a live dinosaur so we can give the land
: > : >>back to them instead of the Indians ;)
: > : >
: > : >Seems like an interesting question to me. Why the flippant
: > : >response?
: > : 
: > : It appears that he had no knowledge to add, but a fascination with
: > : the "I am important!  Listen to ME!!!!" compulsion predominant.  Not uncommon
: > : with small children.  Most outgrow it.  Don't worry about him.  I shall not.
: > 
: > 
: > Seems to me that he was raising the question as to who the
: > "original" occupants of the land really were.  
: 
: The answer: bugs.  Lots of 'em.  That's why those fish tried to
: crawl on land in the first place -- there were so many bugs that
: until then had no reason to defend themselves against large land
: predators that they didn't move very fast and were easy for any
: fish willing and able to stay out of water awhile to feast on.
: At least, this is my highly uneducated guess.
: 
: And, sure enough, we're doing The Right Thing, giving all our land
: back to bugs.
: 
: After all, look at how many copies of Microsoft products are sold!  ;-)

Can't argue with that at all....

    ----- Paul J. Gans  [gans@scholar.chem.nyu.edu]

On 16 Jun 1997 12:52:51 GMT, merittj@wangfed.com (Jim Meritt) wrote:

The most promising method is taking core samples.  I can't recall the
exact details I think someplace in the Andes they took out a deep core
and believe they're planning  on going into different icepacked areas
like Antartica or Iceland.  They were  enthusiastic about their
results.  This is fairly recent, in the last couple of years.  
Dennis 
> there a way to determine specific prehistoric weather events?  Not 
>climate.  I know about pollen, isotope balances in shells and such but I'm 
>looking for (fossilized?) indicators of specific weterological events.  
>

Matt Silberstein wrote:

> Could you please supply some information to back up your statements.
> Otherwise I would suspect that you are exaggerating at best and lying
> at worst.

It isn't worth bothering with & you've probably seen this before.
Time for me to end participating in this discussion which is
solving nothing.


Joseph