Over a million square miles MORE ICE, frozen in the SUMMER of 2013 , in the Arctic. I'll go with the UN-ALTERED, EMPIRICAL , SATTELLITE DATA, over your alleged anectdotal experiences, thank you. to do anything else, would be completely contradicyory of any scientific consideration, whatsoever. You can post whatever you choose to; let's see the VERIFIABLE sat-pics refuting the OP claims, and the GROWTH of the Arctic Ice this past summer.
Let me clear that up for you: " COMPLETE SPECULATION": Abstract. In paleoclimate studies, cosmogenic isotopes are frequently used as proxy indicators of past variations in solar irradiance on centennial and millennial timescales. These isotopes are spallation products of galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) impacting Earth’s atmosphere, which are deposited and stored in terrestrial reservoirs such as ice sheets, ocean sediments and tree trunks. On timescales shorter than the variations in the geomagnetic field, they are modulated by the heliosphere and thus they are, strictly speaking, an index of heliospheric variability rather than one of solar variability. Strong evidence of climate variations associated with the production (as opposed to the deposition) of these isotopes is emerging. This raises a vital question: do cosmic rays have a direct influence on climate or are they a good proxy indicator for another factor that does (such as the total or spectral solar irradiance)? The former possibility raises further questions about the possible growth of air ions generated by cosmic rays into cloud condensation nuclei and/or the modulation of the global thunderstorm electric circuit. The latter possibility requires new understanding about the required relationship between the heliospheric magnetic fields that scatter cosmic rays and the photospheric magnetic fields which modulate solar irradiance. More of the "we really cannot prove that this is accurate, or even remotely reliable, but we'd like to go ahead and pretend it is", nonsense that virtually DEFINES the Warmist Religion. - - - Updated - - - Thicker than the previous year, when it WASN'T THERE...a MILLION SQUARES MILES worth....
Carbon 14 was proven to be WILDLY INACCURATE... more than a decade ago. Where you been? In addition, it has ZERO BEARING on NON-ORGANIC MATTER. Carbon dating is used to work out the age of organic material — in effect, any living thing. The technique hinges on carbon-14, a radioactive isotope of the element that, unlike other more stable forms of carbon, decays away at a steady rate. Organisms capture a certain amount of carbon-14 from the atmosphere when they are alive. By measuring the ratio of the radio isotope to non-radioactive carbon, the amount of carbon-14 decay can be worked out, thereby giving an age for the specimen in question. But that assumes that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere was constant — any variation would speed up or slow down the clock. The clock was initially calibrated by dating objects of known age such as Egyptian mummies and bread from Pompeii; work that won Willard Libby the 1960 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. But even he “realized that there probably would be variation”, says Christopher Bronk Ramsey, a geochronologist at the University of Oxford, UK, who led the latest work, published today in Science. Various geologic, atmospheric and solar processes can influence atmospheric carbon-14 levels. Since the 1960s, scientists have started accounting for the variations by calibrating the clock against the known ages of tree rings. As a rule, carbon dates are younger than calendar dates: a bone carbon-dated to 10,000 years is around 11,000 years old, and 20,000 carbon years roughly equates to 24,000 calendar years. The problem, says Bronk Ramsey, is that tree rings provide a direct record that only goes as far back as about 14,000 years. Marine records, such as corals, have been used to push farther back in time, but these are less robust because levels of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and the ocean are not identical and tend shift with changes in ocean circulation. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbon-dating-gets-reset or this: In the laboratory, samples must be processed and cleaned so that there is no material on them that might throw off the age reading. Then the sample is burned and passes through a completely sterile vacuum system as Carbon dioxide gas. The gas is then subjected to more purifying procedures. Afterward the gas is stored in a tube insulated by Mercury and Lead, so as to minimize the chances of the sample being affected by radiations from the atmosphere. When a Carbon-14 atom disintegrates fine instruments detect the action, a light flashes on a control panel, and a counter records the number of decaying atoms. By this method the scientist can keep track of how many atoms are decomposing per minute and per second. (Poole) This sounds great! We are now ably to date anything we want, even that something at the back of the fridge, and know how old it is within a few hundred years, but are there any problems with the Carbon dating method? Unfortunately there are. In order to know how long a sample of radioactive material had been decomposing we need three variables defined, how much of the sample we have left now, what the half-life of the sample is, and how much of the sample we started out with. For Carbon dating we have already experimentally measured the amount of Carbon-14 left, and Libby has already measured the half-life of Carbon-14 to an acceptable exactness, however how much Carbon-14 was there in the specimen at the time of death. The amount of Carbon-14 in an organic body is constant with the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Thus specimens have the same amount of carbon-14 in them as the rest of the atmosphere at the time that the specimen lived. However, if we could measure the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere when they lived, we would be living during the time and there would be no reason for dating. (Ham, Snelling, & Wieland) We know for a fact that the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere has not stayed the same in the past century. A recent proof of that would be the Industrial revolution. Factories put out massive amounts of Carbon, and during that time the concentration of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere increased significantly. Fortunately, Libby was a smart guy and accounted for this discrepancy. He measured the amount of Carbon in the inner layers of trees that were older than the Industrial revolution. He was able to calculate the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere, before the industrial revolution, and adjust his equation accordingly. (Ham, Snelling, & Wieland) However, Libby then assumed that the amount of Carbon in the atmosphere was relatively constant for a very long time up until the Industrial revolution. Can this be assumed to be correct? In the atmosphere the amount of Carbon-14 decaying over time increases with the greater concentration of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere. Eventually the reaction would reach some equilibrium and the amount of Carbon-14 in the atmosphere would remain constant. Scientists have calculated that the amount Carbon-14 in the atmosphere would become stable after 30,000 years from the beginning of the reaction. The reaction must have started when the Earth was formed, and thus the reaction would reach equilibrium after the Earth was 30,000 years old. Scientists have assumed that the Earth is many millions of years old, however, no one was living when the earth was formed, and no one has concrete proof as to when the Earth was formed and therefore no one can say exactly how old it is. (Ham, Snelling, & Wieland) http://www.chem.uwec.edu/Chem115_F00/nelsolar/chem.htm Mere speculation... GREATLY FLAWED speculation, at that. Keep dancing...it's fun to watch. Still waiting for the Big Explanation of the SATELLITE DATA cited in the OP, instead of all the attempts to change the topic since....
Translation: I can not do dat "google ting"...seriously? Post #131. I knew you are too lazy or dishonest to actually research it objectively..so I did it for you. Sad. Still waiting for the Big Explanation of the SATELLITE DATA cited in the OP, instead of all the attempts to change the topic since....
Yeah seriously. It is a major tool used by archeologist to work out the age of the finds they are trying to date. A piece of charcoal from Celtic fire pit is worth its weight in gold.
Because you really cannot see post #131. I'm sure you're fooling everyone here, with your silly attempted dance moves. Still waiting for the Big Explanation of the SATELLITE DATA cited in the OP, instead of all the attempts to change the topic since....
Good job, you seem to over look the fact he is talking about dating 10,000 plus years old. The accuracy creep is well known for anything over 7500 years ago. But that is all beside the point because I was responding to your question about how solar radiance could be measured in 1900
the two hottest years on record are: 2010 and 2005. http://www.voanews.com/content/the-year-2012-was-9th-hottest-year-on-record/1585020.html
The are BOTH wildly INACCURATE.. . Trouble keeping track of your own attempts to deflect from the embarrassing FACTS of the OP? Still waiting for the Big Explanation of the SATELLITE DATA cited in the OP, instead of all the attempts to change the topic since....
I have no interest in debating global warming. I only entered this thread to set straight some of the silliness being spread about science. So far I have had to deal with claims that high energy particles hitting the upper atmosphere is bunk, that sunspots cool the Earth and the thickness of ice not only does not vary but does not matter. All of which can be proved wrong using no more than middle school science. Maybe one day an intelligent argument may break out around here on the topic, but somehow I doubt it will be in my time
All of which are completely irrelevant to the topic of the thread,and introduced by YOU. Congratulations! You are (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about your own DEFLECTION ATTEMPTS. Hilarious. Still waiting for the Big Explanation of the SATELLITE DATA cited in the OP, instead of all the attempts to change the topic since....
You know Global Warming is a reality when the U.S. Military and U.S. Navy starts creating a new Arctic Ocean Carrier Group specific to patrolling and monitoring shipping in the Arctic Ocean that just a few years ago was completely frozen Ice Pack. AboveAlpha
Uh-huh..sure. That settles it. They also have a contingency for space alien invasion, too. Didn't bother to go through the thread we see. The Arctic is ICE LOCKED, not open, contrary to Warmist Mythology, ad there are a million MORE square miles of ice there than this time last year, after an unusually COLD Arctic SUMMER. Let's see the details of this new " carrier group"....
We're being threatened by rampant ideology. If it's not nearly every professional climatologist falling victim to creeping warmism, it's all biologists falling for the falsehood of evolutionism, just as physicists have long been lured by the false siren call of gravitism. Belief systems, every one of them.
Awesome dance moves!! And the "consensus" once was that the world was FLAT, too. Which is a great illustration of why ACTUAL SCIENTISTS came up with SCIENTIFIC METHOD, the mortal enemy of the "Consensus Over Proof" pseudo-scientist, political activist Warmists. But...wonderful dancing to avoid/deflect from the EMPIRICAL DATA cited in the OP link:
The bigger question is how did those deluded fools think that taxing the general public would do something about 'warming' or that freaking ozone layer? Let me give the bleeding hearts a hint: We CAN'T do anything about it, save for returning back to a pre-industrial age. But what we do know, is that the layer's still pretty thick and it'll probably stay that way for the next oh, ten thousand years. Global warming is a hoax so that Bill Gates, Al Gore and CO can rip you off of millions. And they hope for bribery, and the general masses of morons to buy in(and to an extent, they have) so that the scheme can perpetuate. This is worse than Madoff, at least his victims got "paid", what are we getting?
It's "function", upon close examination, has been to promote World Socialism, and supporting Third World dicatatorships, by extracting income from the West (read: the US.)
Follow the money, who has a vested interest in keeping the scam alive. Those "scientists" getting grants and research money. No one is denying the Earth warms and cools. The question is how much impact does Man actually have? 60 Million years ago there were Herbivore Dinosaurs and the plants they feed on living 400 to 1200 miles from the North Pole. There were no men of burning fossil fuels in those days. So can you prove positively any warming today is due to Man or is it simply another big cycle of the Earth?
not in 2013... the artic added 533,000 square miles of ice, in summer time, something the UN's climate model claims would be impossible. Its a UN scam to get money, nothing more.
