Global warming

Aviation Trivia, Jokes & Humour

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
viki
Stressed Eric ain't got nothing on me
Posts: 515
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 1:52 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA
Has liked: 9 times
Been liked: 3 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by viki » Sun Dec 30, 2018 12:50 pm

MadMacs wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:39 am
Years ago a student from Stellenbosch University did a thesis on how the ozone layer hole size was a natural cycle. I remember this as it was shown on SABC tv and when submitted for peer review every scientist shot him down and I wonder what ever happened to this poor guy as he has since been proven to be correct. So much for the term scientist, I would rather trust an engineer any day.

By the way that was when freon was banned and the company that supplied its replacement made billions. Makes you think.

Gotta love how deniers argue, i give this 10 out of 10 for bogus entertainment. =D>

First You talk about some university student without experience using a mere thesis trying to prove it as a natural cycle.

Then without much thought talk about how this poor student was proven correct without providing any credible evidence or source to back it up.

Then the most hilarious part, saying you would trust and engineer rather than a scientist that actually specializes in the field devoting his life to the truth.

Do you also go to the Sangoma when they tell you to go to the surgeon ? #-o :lol:

The Ozone Layer Isn't Healing Itself After All

Throughout the history of life on Earth, there's been a little-noticed helper: a thin but important layer of ozone in our planet's stratosphere. Transparent to visible light, this trioxygen molecule isn't the type you breathe, but rather successfully absorbs incoming high-energy ultraviolet light. Without the ozone layer, this light would propagate down to the surface, where it's capable of breaking organic bonds and working to counteract the natural life processes we hold so dear. Inadvertently, the widespread rise in chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and their use in aerosol cans began to destroy the protective ozone layer, and some 30 years ago, humanity banded together to virtually eliminate CFC use. We thought the hole would close and the problem would solve itself. But a new study, surveying a part of the ozone layer that hadn't been examined before, shows that the overall problem hasn't improved in 20 years.

Ultraviolet radiation is known to be dangerous, and our stratospheric ozone is our first line of defense. With the widespread adoption of and compliance with the Montreal Protocol, atmospheric ozone stopped decreasing, and measurements of the upper stratosphere indicated that ozone levels were recovering. The recovery was so significant that the leading models predicted a 100% recovery at most human-populated latitudes by the year 2100. But one unknown had yet to be investigated to the required level of scrutiny: the concentration of ozone at lower altitudes. Contrary to expectations and with no explanation for how it's happened, the lower stratosphere appears to be losing ozone, so much so that the total amount of ozone over the most densely populated areas isn't increasing at all.

In what promises to be the first unexpected result from atmospheric sciences in 2018, a team of researchers gathered four different datasets that have been monitoring the higher altitudes of Earth's atmosphere, and analyzed them for changes in ozone concentrations. While the upper stratosphere showed the same increases in ozone densities, the lower stratosphere, carefully analyzed for the first time, showed the opposite effect. This is something none of the best ozone-layer models, successful as they are for other applications, were able to predict.

The reason for the continuing decline is not fully understood, but could be a result of our changing climate, increases in unregulated short-lived chlorine species.

In fact, if you quantify the amount that ozone concentrations, overall, have changed, you find that the amount that ozone in the lower stratosphere has decreased virtually cancels out the increases seen in the other layers. This is an unexpected puzzle, since we understand how ozone is naturally produced in the stratosphere: by the same two ingredients — oxygen and ultraviolet light — that have always produced it. When ultraviolet light strikes an oxygen molecule, it breaks it up into two individual oxygen atoms. Each one can then react with another oxygen molecule, producing ozone molecules, which ought to remain in the stratosphere: where production peaks.

But what we haven't understood well, apparently, is how the produced ozone is redistributed or, potentially, destroyed by other processes. While there are certainly puzzles concerning what the ozone in Earth's atmosphere is doing, the past 20 years of data have shown one thing definitively: it hasn't simply remained constant. (At least, over the latitudes which have been carefully monitored.) From 1998 until 2011, the total ozone column density actually rose, only to fall again back to 1998 levels over the past few years.

If we look at the lowest layer of Earth's atmosphere: the troposphere. This layer, consisting of the closest few kilometers of atmosphere to our surface (and over 80% of the Earth's atmosphere, by mass), has shown an increase in ozone density. Admittedly, the data has only been available with global coverage for approximately 12-13 years, but it's quite convincing: it shows that the ozone density in the lowest layers is rising, just like it is in the upper stratosphere. This makes what's occurring in the mid-to-lower stratosphere all the more puzzling.

There are five major conclusions to come out of this work, some (but not all) of which are promising:

The Montreal Protocol continues to demonstrate its effectiveness for increasing ozone density in the upper stratosphere, as predicted.
Mysteriously, the lower stratosphere has shown a larger-magnitude ozone decline over the same time period.
Overall, the global mid-latitude ozone density in the stratosphere has slightly decreased, as the lower stratosphere effect has been slightly more powerful.
If you add the tropospheric increases in, the total ozone density has only remained relatively constant.

One is very short-lived substances (VSLS) that is destroying portions of the ozone layer.

Owing to global warming, the tropopause has risen and will continue to rise, the troposphere has warmed, and these phenomena have an effect on ozone concentrations in the lower stratosphere. Furthermore, greenhouse gas-induced climate change causes an increase in upwelling in the tropics, which decrease stratospheric ozone there. The data is clear: the "100% recovery by 2100" prediction didn't include these results. With this new understanding, that recovery may be stalled or pushed out to extremely long timescales, and global warming may be exacerbating or even causing this trouble.

A rise in the tropopause, due to the warming troposphere, could lead to a decrease in ozone at mid-latitudes, but the tropopause rise is also affected by the ozone loss itself...

where ozone in the lower stratosphere is an important factor in radiative forcing of the climate. Based on straightforward physics, reducing lower-stratospheric ozone will offset some of the forcing increase from rising GHGs.

In other words, redistributing the ozone away from the lower stratosphere has actually reduced the radiative forcing that accelerates global warming. Yes, the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica may be shrinking, but we have to examine the global effects of ozone, not just what's occurring at one pole. And when we do, it doesn't look good. The overall concentrations of ozone in the atmosphere, worldwide, have not increased since 1997, but are the same today as they were back then.

The Montreal Protocol is working, but if the negative trend in lower stratospheric ozone persists, its efficiency might be disputed. Restoration of the ozone layer is essential to reduce the harmful effects of solar UV radiation that impact human and ecosystem health.

If we are to restore the ozone layer and reduce the harmful effects of ultraviolet radiation of life on planet Earth (including to humans)
We only have one planet where life has arisen and sustained itself, as far as we know. It's up to all of us to take care of it.


William T. Ball
1,2


, Johannes Staehelin
2
,
Joanna D. Haigh
4,7
, Thomas Peter
2
, Fiona Tummon
2
, Rene Stübi
8
,
Andrea Stenke
2


, Sean M. Davis
11,12
,
Doug Degenstein
10
, Stacey Frith
13,14
, Lucien Froidevaux
15
, Chris Roth
10
,
Viktoria Sofieva
16

, Jeannette Wild
18,19
, Pengfei Yu
11,12
,
Jerald R. Ziemke
14,20
, and Eugene V. Rozanov
1,2
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Dec 30, 2018 2:07 pm

MadMacs wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:39 am
Years ago a student from Stellenbosch University did a thesis on how the ozone layer hole size was a natural cycle. I remember this as it was shown on SABC tv and when submitted for peer review every scientist shot him down and I wonder what ever happened to this poor guy as he has since been proven to be correct. So much for the term scientist, I would rather trust an engineer any day.

By the way that was when freon was banned and the company that supplied its replacement made billions. Makes you think.
Every 'scientists' funding and image is very important to themselves.. Dare you announce their research as incorrect, and they use all means to denounce you as a heretic (actually that happens everywhere). Academia have very long knives hidden behind their large desks.
I worked in a geological research lab where they dated rocks ( ;) ) via isotope means where they determine the age of the earth.

The only flaw in the method was that the 'Isotope clock' could be locally reset (high energy) by a large meteorite strike or continental drift where the continent is forced down into the magma/lava zone. So you only get the last 'clocks' age.

It was a point to consider, and they didn't like me very much :) I take it they never thought of that and it must have been blasphemy in geological circles... Just not cricket, you know

;)
nicofly
Lining Up
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:22 am
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: constansia kloof
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by nicofly » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 pm

That's because those unqualified individuals who criticize scientists specializing in their very fields does not have the credentials and knowledge to do so, i would be mad if some jack of all trades wannabe comes to me and tries to explain something in my field coming to a conclusion without knowing the full picture of the scientific process, the collaboration efforts between scientists all over the globe and different methods combined to get to a certain result, thinking he is right when he is clearly wrong.

There are 40 types of radiometric dating. not just 1. and used on objects on earth and outside earth.
In addition, there is a host of other methods used in conjunction and/or separately used from radiometric dating, not any one method is used to determine the age of the earth. So the end scientific result is accurate, not flawed at all as deniers would like to believe.

In addition, determinations of age are repeated to avoid laboratory errors, are obtained on more than one rock unit or more than one mineral from a rock unit in order to provide a cross-check, as well as evaluated using other geologic information that can be used to test and corroborate the radiometric ages.

Scientists who use radiometric dating typically use every means at their disposal to check, recheck, and verify their results, after all they are scientist who's sole purpose is to get to the truth, and the more important the results the more they are apt to be checked and rechecked by others.

As a result, it is nearly impossible to be completely fooled by a good set of radiometric age data collected as part of a well-designed experiment.
FLY it like you borrowed it
User avatar
MadMacs
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2290
Joined: Thu Sep 05, 2013 3:41 pm
Closest Airfield: GRJ
Location: On my bed
Has liked: 142 times
Been liked: 25 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by MadMacs » Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:37 pm

As we've said many times, evidence continues to show weaknesses in climate models used to predict future warming. They failed to predict a decade-long pause in global temperatures. Nor have various calamities that were supposed to have occurred by now materialized. And a recent paper published in Nature concluded that the planet is less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the computer models say.

Startling New Discovery Could Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts:

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... ogen-rocks
The closest I get to flying these days is when I put my cellphone in 'flight mode'.
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:55 pm

nicofly wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 pm
That's because those unqualified individuals ..
I know as I wrote the software for our specific lab that calculated the ages..etc, so besides having to know how each specific test equipment works (Mass-spec, Ion Probes..etc), not to mention repairs these when faulty, I had to know the theory/methods behind the concepts - a study in itself but not difficult at all.
;)
User avatar
sampie
Incipient Spin
Posts: 368
Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 1:33 pm
Closest Airfield: fakr
Location: Roodepoort
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 18 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by sampie » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:01 pm

MadMacs wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:37 pm
As we've said many times, evidence continues to show weaknesses in climate models used to predict future warming. They failed to predict a decade-long pause in global temperatures. Nor have various calamities that were supposed to have occurred by now materialized. And a recent paper published in Nature concluded that the planet is less sensitive to increases in CO2 than the computer models say.

Startling New Discovery Could Destroy All Those Global Warming Doomsday Forecasts:

https://www.investors.com/politics/edit ... ogen-rocks

Just another hoax article, not surprising looking at the source :wink:


But climate scientists assumed that the ability to plants to perform this function was limited because the availability of nitrogen in the atmosphere was limited.
Given that Nitrogen by volume constitutes 78% of the Earth's atmosphere it could hardly be described as limited.
Climate scientists know that the ability is limited because they can, within uncertainties, close the Carbon budget. This closure shows that roughly for every three Carbon Dioxide molecules emitted by fossil fuel combustion one is ending up in the ocean, one in the terrestrial biosphere, and one remains in the atmosphere. This is an observed and verified behaviour. Plants are removing approximately 1/3 of the excess Carbon added by humans and this has remained broadly stable over several decades.

"there will not be enough nitrogen available to sustain the high carbon uptake scenarios."
This is around whether there may be a reduction in the ability in future of the terrestrial biosphere to uptake Carbon. If Nitrogen is the sole limitation then indeed the risk is a reduction in ability of the biosphere to uptake Carbon. But, it is over-simplistic to consider Nitrogen uptake the sole potential limiting factor as implied by this quotation.
Houlton has been exploring this possibility for years. Back in 2011, he reported that forest trees can tap into nitrogen found in rock. At the time, he said "the stunning finding that forests can also feed on nitrogen in rocks has the potential to change all projections related to climate change," because it meant there could be more carbon storage on land and less in the atmosphere than climate models say.

It should be noted that much of the Net Primary Productivity arises from grasses and other non-boreal sources. If only trees that are deep rooted enough to reach bed-rock can tap this source then the potential is very much geographically limited.

They failed to predict a decadelong pause in global temperatures.
Individual runs of individual models did capture such behaviour as has been shown by a wealth of literature on the topic. On a decadal scale natural variability plays an important role as can short-lived forcing effects. The scientific community has a substantial understanding of the "pause" and its causes. This understanding builds rather than diminishes confidence in the climate models.
Meanwhile, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has been conducting highly suspicious temperature data manipulation. The changes in the temperature data consistently make the past seem cooler, which in turn makes the present seem warmer.
The NOAA temperature analyses have been thoroughly documented in the peer reviewed literature, independently evaluated, and are comparable to several completely independently produced estimates. The largest adjustment serves to remove an artificial warming in the Ocean temperatures in the mid-20th Century. This adjustment dwarfs all others applied. Unadjusted data show more warming since the late 19th Century than the adjusted records from NOAA and elsewhere do.
nicofly
Lining Up
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:22 am
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: constansia kloof
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by nicofly » Sun Dec 30, 2018 6:19 pm

vanjast wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:55 pm
nicofly wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 3:06 pm
That's because those unqualified individuals ..
I know as I wrote the software for our specific lab that calculated the ages..etc, so besides having to know how each specific test equipment works (Mass-spec, Ion Probes..etc), not to mention repairs these when faulty, I had to know the theory/methods behind the concepts - a study in itself but not difficult at all.
;)
That's all Dandy and well good for you it should give you insight. However determining geologic record does not involve a single method and not just radiometric samples from earth itself.

The Earth formed together with the rest of the Solar System and its meteorites around 4.5 billion years ago. When meteorites fall on Earth and you pick them up, you are able to date the time of their formation.
FLY it like you borrowed it
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:12 pm

Yes.. We did that and many other rocks, diamonds for exploration... and many post docs and their theses as well, but the fact still remains... the radio isotope clock can be reset.
The dating works for this time period, but is this the only time period of that sample, maybe or maybe not. ;)
vanjast
Frequent AvComer
Posts: 715
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:08 pm
Closest Airfield: 200
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by vanjast » Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:33 pm

Anyway.. back to global warming and how scientific stuff can be twisted and the public that tend to unquestioningly believe that nonsense.
I think this little diversion is a perfect example of what happens ;)
nicofly
Lining Up
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:22 am
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: constansia kloof
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by nicofly » Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:47 pm

vanjast wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:12 pm
Yes.. We did that and many other rocks, diamonds for exploration... and many post docs and their theses as well, but the fact still remains... the radio isotope clock can be reset.
The dating works for this time period, but is this the only time period of that sample, maybe or maybe not. ;)
Independent clocks are used :wink:

All rocks and minerals contain long-lived radioactive elements that were incorporated into Earth when the Solar System formed. These radioactive elements constitute independent clocks that allow geologists to determine the age of the rocks in which they occur.

Although single-stage leads are difficult to find on Earth due to the constant recycling of Earth's crust, Pb-Pb isochrons remain powerful tools in making age of the Earth calculations. A Pb-Pb isochron plots 207Pb, the daughter isotope of 235U, versus 206Pb, the daughter isotope of 238U, with both normalized to 204Pb. The resulting line drawn through the plotted points will pass through a point representing the initial lead composition of the system.

Unlike other isochrons, the slope of the Pb-Pb isochron decreases with increasing age. This is because 235U has a half-life of 704 million years, while 238U has a half-life of 4.47 billion years.

The rate at which daughter isotopes accumulate is dependent on the amount of parent isotope present. Since 235U has a much shorter half-life, a larger fraction of the initial 235U present in the rock will have decayed compared to 238U. Therefore, 207Pb will accumulate at a slower rate than 206Pb, causing the isochron to decrease in slope with increasing age. The use of lead isotope ratios makes this isochron self-checking. A large scattering of measurements would indicate the sample is multi-stage

The radioactive parent elements used to date rocks and minerals are:

Parent Daughter

Half-life
Uranium-235 Lead-207 0.704 billion years
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.47
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0
Rhenium-187 Osmium-187 43.0

The presence of three lead isotopes can be used to generate powerful tools for age calculations. These methods are self-checking and more reliable than those which rely on isotopes of differing elements. These methods have also provided logical evidence connecting the formation of the earth to the formation of meteorites and other bodies of the Solar System. When taken in combination with other dating tools, compelling evidence for an ancient earth is found.
Last edited by nicofly on Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:49 am, edited 5 times in total.
FLY it like you borrowed it
User avatar
rare bird
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:47 pm
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by rare bird » Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:50 pm

there have been many different sea levels in geological history. I have personally seen at least 4 distinct sea levels in the SA coastline.
some were periods when the sea was extremely rough (shells eg forminifera all broken up), and other periods when it was calm for what would appear to be at least a few thousand years.
ok, some of the changes in sea level would have been due to the continent "tilting up" and probably not as a result of possible climate change at the same time.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
nicofly
Lining Up
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:22 am
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: constansia kloof
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by nicofly » Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:51 pm

vanjast wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:33 pm
Anyway.. back to global warming and how scientific stuff can be twisted and the public that tend to unquestioningly believe that nonsense.
I think this little diversion is a perfect example of what happens ;)
Your conclusion wrt your diversion is incorrect and proof of Human Induced Climate Change is everywhere. Scientists does not lie it's the politicians twisting it to their unethical intentions that does.

Scientific data can be twisted favouring unethical political agenda's, but the science coming directly from the scientist without interpretation is pure and true.

Scientists are doing the best and they are providing the Truth.
FLY it like you borrowed it
User avatar
rare bird
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2127
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 2:47 pm
Has liked: 40 times
Been liked: 11 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by rare bird » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:25 pm

nicofly wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:47 pm
vanjast wrote:
Sun Dec 30, 2018 8:12 pm
Yes.. We did that and many other rocks, diamonds for exploration... and many post docs and their theses as well, but the fact still remains... the radio isotope clock can be reset.
The dating works for this time period, but is this the only time period of that sample, maybe or maybe not. ;)
Independent clocks are used.

All rocks and minerals contain long-lived radioactive elements that were incorporated into Earth when the Solar System formed. These radioactive elements constitute independent clocks that allow geologists to determine the age of the rocks in which they occur. The radioactive parent elements used to date rocks and minerals are:

Parent Daughter

Half-life
Uranium-235 Lead-207 0.704 billion years
Uranium-238 Lead-206 4.47
Potassium-40 Argon-40 1.25
Rubidium-87 Strontium-87 48.8
Samarium-147 Neodymium-143 106
Thorium-232 Lead-208 14.0
Rhenium-187 Osmium-187 43.0
Decay sequence from uranium 238 to lead 206:
Uranium 238 decays with a half-life of 4.46 billion years to Thorium 234 (24.1 days) to Protactinium 234 (46.69 hours) to Uranium 234
( 245500 years) to Thorium 230 (75400 years) to Radium 226 (1599 years) to Radon 222 (3.82 days) to Polonium 218 ( 3.04 minutes) to
Lead 214 ( 27 minutes) to Bismuth 214 (19.9 minutes) to Polonium 210 (0.16 milliseconds) to Lead 206 (which is stable).
When you measure with different cameras eg a GeLi detector / gamma camera, you get one curve coming out (the sum of all the activity within the energy band you have set up the camera on) so it takes quite a bit of wiskunde to de-convolute. A further complication in trying to de-convolute the decay curve is where some of the "in-between" daughter products can migrate or are absorbed or adsorbed differently eg Radon is a gas which can disperse in the atmosphere, or dissolve into water and be carried elsewhere before decaying further (and depositing the polonium). I personally had very little success targeting Polonium and virtually zero success on lead. perhaps I was just too impatient to occupy equipment for the long count times?

incidentally, decent UV monitors have only been around for about 30 odd years. (our CSIR developed Goldilux monitor was one of the first "decent" UV monitors) - so a lot of the data prior to the early 80's is possibly not that brilliant. There were also very few satellite passes over the poles in those old days!
even with the multiple passes these days, you can still get "gaps" in the data between passes
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
nicofly
Lining Up
Posts: 100
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 11:22 am
Closest Airfield: fala
Location: constansia kloof
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by nicofly » Sun Dec 30, 2018 9:53 pm

Although single-stage leads are difficult to find on Earth due to the constant recycling of Earth's crust, Pb-Pb isochrons remain powerful tools in making age of the Earth calculations. A Pb-Pb isochron plots 207Pb, the daughter isotope of 235U, versus 206Pb, the daughter isotope of 238U, with both normalized to 204Pb. The resulting line drawn through the plotted points will pass through a point representing the initial lead composition of the system.

Unlike other isochrons, the slope of the Pb-Pb isochron decreases with increasing age. This is because 235U has a half-life of 704 million years, while 238U has a half-life of 4.47 billion years.

The rate at which daughter isotopes accumulate is dependent on the amount of parent isotope present. Since 235U has a much shorter half-life, a larger fraction of the initial 235U present in the rock will have decayed compared to 238U. Therefore, 207Pb will accumulate at a slower rate than 206Pb, causing the isochron to decrease in slope with increasing age. The use of lead isotope ratios makes this isochron self-checking. A large scattering of measurements would indicate the sample is multi-stage

Radiometric dating using the naturally-occurring radioactive elements is simple in concept even though technically complex. If we know the number of radioactive parent atoms present when a rock formed and the number present now, we can calculate the age of the rock using the decay constant. The number of parent atoms originally present is simply the number present now plus the number of daughter atoms formed by the decay, both of which are quantities that can be measured. Samples for dating are selected carefully to avoid those that are altered, contaminated, or disturbed by later heating or chemical events.

In addition to the ages of Earth, Moon, and meteorites, radiometric dating has been used to determine ages of fossils, including early man, timing of glaciations, ages of mineral deposits, recurrence rates of earthquakes and volcanic eruptions, the history of reversals of Earth's magnetic field, and the age and duration of a wide variety of other geological events and processes.

Scientists use the best methods and instruments to detect signatures. they are not holding a geiger counter at samples :lol:
Last edited by nicofly on Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.
FLY it like you borrowed it
User avatar
Antman
Finals (unmanned)
Posts: 407
Joined: Tue Aug 08, 2006 10:25 am
Closest Airfield: FARA
Location: Glen Erasmia JNB
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 15 times

Re: Global warming

Unread post by Antman » Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:28 am

I see we've moved on to geology of the Earth and age determination.

With that in mind have any of you boffins read this https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 00070001-8

https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom ... 0001-8.pdf This is a "Sanitized" version.
One has to wonder what's been taken out?

The biggest question of all, is why was this classified in the first place, quite scary!

Return to “123.45”