Submission + - correction to a slashdot report on Carbon dating (scienceblogs.com)
nanahuatzin writes: "In a previous report of slashdot news it was stated that that carbon dating in the ocean can only be trusted up to 150 million years ago.
But the original report at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/03/0802841105 it was not about carbon dating.
The problem first is that the report at slashdot can be used to say that Carbon dating does not work, which is one of the arguments of the creationst. but carbon dating is not used on samples older than a few tenths of thousands years old, never is used to samples millions of years old. And the original article is not about carbon dating,
The second problem is that it can be used to argue against the evidence of global warmimg. But we could understand current climate and climate change with far less than the last 100 million years of a climate record.
The report is really about what is need to be reasesed on data older than 150, million. Which is exactly the process on how we know how to use it with precision."
But the original report at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2008/09/03/0802841105 it was not about carbon dating.
The problem first is that the report at slashdot can be used to say that Carbon dating does not work, which is one of the arguments of the creationst. but carbon dating is not used on samples older than a few tenths of thousands years old, never is used to samples millions of years old. And the original article is not about carbon dating,
The second problem is that it can be used to argue against the evidence of global warmimg. But we could understand current climate and climate change with far less than the last 100 million years of a climate record.
The report is really about what is need to be reasesed on data older than 150, million. Which is exactly the process on how we know how to use it with precision."
