Carbon 14 levels have been DECLINING in the 20th Century, so you are being hypocritical when you call me an idiot.
In addition, we have Beryllium 10 isotopes that pretty much confirm what the decline in Carbon 14 isotopes tell us, that solar activity ramped up strongly during the 20th Century. Read the Usoskin et. al paper I posted.
Formation during nuclear tests
Must admit sometimes I learn something new when talking to you but I hardly ever learn that your right this is interesting;
The above-ground nuclear tests that occurred in several countries between 1955 and 1980 (see nuclear test list) dramatically increased the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere and subsequently in the biosphere; after the tests ended, the atmospheric concentration of the isotope began to decrease.
One side effect of the change in atmospheric carbon-14 is that this has enabled some options for determining the birth year of an individual, in particular, the amount of carbon-14 in tooth enamel, or the carbon-14 concentration in the lens of the eye.
Still it makes carbon 14 useless for your purpose after the mid 40s, I wonder if nuclear tests affect Beryllium 10 isotopes?
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/06/judit ... solar.html
There are plenty of solar physicists who disagree with the IPCC.
So your evidence is a blog that's so badly designed it hurts the eyes and has as its catch line; "OUR STRINGY UNIVERSE FROM A CONSERVATIVE VIEWPOINT" aren't you a bit embarrassed linking that?
Perhaps C-14 isotopes are useless for the mid to late-20th Century. Thanks for linking that up.
I don't think Be-10 isotopes would be impacted by it though, which show an even steeper decline in concentration over the 20th Century than the C-14 isotopes in the Usoskin et. al paper.
The point of the matter is that we have many lines of evidence that point to a rapidly brightening sun over the 20th Century, including the Geomagnetic AA Index, GCRs, Be-10 isotopes etc. so your statement about how solar activity could not have possibly risen during the time of the industrial revolution seems a bit on the unscientific side, don't you think?
BTW are you going to address the fact that the role of the sun in the IPCC was determined by one solar scientist who agreed with herself or not?