“It’s not about dating, as that can be done by counting tree rings and a reliable [to one year certainty] tree ring chronology goes back 10,000 years. It is, in fact, the error in the 14C date that gives us the proxy.”

Thinking about this for a minute is revealing. Samples from the dendrochronologic sequence are radiocarbon dated and the C14 series is ‘calibrated’. A curve of C14 concentration is generated as represented by the tree cores.

This means the standard error of the dating process remains: The number of remaining C14 atoms are counted and the proportion of total Carbon computed. Plugging this into a simple differential equation results in the estimate of time elapsed, and thus the date of tissue death.

With calibration one is performing a check on the result which ostensibly adds information. The Thera radiocarbon date was done by a German lab and was calibrated, and yet remains in error by 6%. Why?

The fundamental assumption is that the CO2, and its C14 are well mixed.

But Thera was an active volcano residing in the Mediterranean. The olive tree was bathed daily by C14 depleted CO2 from ocean outgassing, and for at least the last decade of its life, by volcanic outgassing, with CO2 devoid of C14. So the sample is unrepresentatively ‘old’.

Second, as indicated above, the 1600 AD calibration sample is unrepresentatively ‘new’ and does not aid accuracy in dating artifacts of the Mediterranean or its perimeter.

“I would ask you to consider — in some exchanges, not going for the jugular is in you better interest and, of the species.”

Right address, wrong street.

Pretense at being more than animal may be returned in kind . Empathy may lead to reconciliation. Self cross-examination may bring clarify.

So much of intercourse has become showbiz. Form is king. Deception queen. Every nugget that may be truth buried under a avalanche of under-rationalize opinion void of logic or citation.

I’m just an ancient high school dropout longing for the spirit of past amicable debates over plate tectonics and light as wave and particle. Passion and politics were there but for the most part., the desire to ascertain fact trumped belief and conviction.

I would ask you to consider — in some exchanges, not going for the jugular is in you better interest and, of the species.

The feedback is appreciated. I have no fundamental disagreement with anything but:

“you should be pursing civil discourse regarding the interpretation of data”

The implication that any member of our species would or could set aside their passions discussing the evidence for or against the overarching issue at this site, AGW, with all it’s economic and social consequences, is motivated either in self-delusion or considered deception.

For the few who come here with no preconceived opinion: They would be unconscionably remiss to long remain so disposed.

No opinion, expressed by anyone here, at bottom issues from reason; that behavior is not part of our frame. Reason is a slave at the behest of belief and conviction.

I’m weary of your convoluted impotent attempts at intellectual condescension. You appear to obsess on logical nitpicks when you should be pursing civil discourse regarding the interpretation of data.

Note: Which translates to “About which one cannot talk one should remain silent”. Lets all play nice. – Anne

“While sunspots are often cited as the main proxy indicator of solar activity, there is another indicator which I view as equally (if not more) important. The Average Planetary Magnetic index (Ap), the strength of which ties into Svensmark’s cosmic ray theory modulating Earth’s cloud cover.”

Remember this?:

Leif Svalgaard (10:58:08) :

“Gary Gulrud (10:17:59) :

He clearly intended to plot a metric of solar activity, not of the variation of the distance to the Sun.”

The problem here is not one of memory, yours is unparalleled, but of a recurrent, tendentious death-grip on evident contradictions.

An hallmark of Wittgenstein is that the notion, ‘words possess an ostensive sense’, is a source of philosophic confusion. He laboured to show that they more properly had a use in situ, in their context, and those uses defy assignment of referents.

I believe, with some reason, that Leif maintains a perspective emblematic logical positivism espoused by the Vienna Circle.

This does not explain this behavior of perseveration, but its recurrent context. The earlier case isn’t ‘forgotten’, the amygdala is simply in a loop that leaves it inaccessible, unavailable.

There’s a plage area in the eastern edge of the southern hemisphere, showing just above a “stuck pixel” on the continuum image. Checking the magnetogram, it’s black leading white, which I guess makes this another possible SC23 event. Seems to be rather high in latitude for this late in the cycle. It has gotten a bit stronger throughout the day today, though it remains to be seen if this will even develop into a sunspeck. Should know by tomorrow if this develops further or sinks back into oblivion.

Thanks for the info!

I think a mistake in characterization is that people who are skeptical about Global Warming are somehow anti-environmental. And I completely disagree with your characterization of “for all the right reasons.”

Science should not be subject to bias due to social considerations. Social considerations should be driven by sound science. Most of us acknowledge certain environmental problems and issues that need to be addressed. Action to respond to Global Warming is unhealthy, if not scientifically accurate, because it means you are directing resources inefficiently. If Carbon Dioxide is not a pollutant, and presents little risk to us, then those resources are better off being directed towards clean drinking water in impoverished places. Or cleaning up real toxic messes. Or development of alternative energies for national security reasons, as well as environmentally sound reasons. Carbon offsets are a joke, and Carbon Taxes will hurt legitimate, otherwise environmentally sound, businesses.

As a father of seven, I am also sensitive to greater agendas driven by many Global Warming alarmist groups that boil the message down to “people are bad.” I am viewed as the enemy to many.

So, I think it is great that people care about environmental issues. That, however, is no excuse for accepting bad science as some kind of means to an end.

An excellent release on the latest findings is here:

http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=25852

Interesting to note that Tankersley was skeptical of the impact claims, set out to disprove them and only ended up convincing himself of their validity.

…I believe the Younger Dryas was caused by a piece of a comet hitting the Laurentide ice sheet 12, 900 years ago causing a spike in the temperatures an a huge influx of water then shutting down the THC.

Most people are not aware that this made a great deal of recent press in a recent discovery pinpointing the impact site…
http://www.google.com/search?q=comet+canada+ohio+diamonds

Meanwhile James Hansen has continued in implicating CO2 in the rapid melt of the Laurentide stade: http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2008/Carlson_etal.html