No, you cannot say that from first hand experience since it isn't true. Tell me, why do you post lies on the Internet?
(hint: atolls grow with the sea level. you need to be careful not to extract more fresh water than they get from rain though - but that has nothing to do with rising sea levels)
"In this clip professor Nils Axel Morner, from Stockholm University travels to the Maldives and finds out that the ocean levels have dropped in recent years."
(as a fellow Swede I'm somewhat proud of our professor, one of the world's most renowned when it comes to sea level studies and who's visited the Maldives plenty of times)
Humans got along just fine with _only_ social means of communication for quite some time;) It seems to be a case of the law of averages over big numbers.
Just to state something that really should be obvious to anyone interested in the scientific method:
It's trivial to create a model that can hindcast anything. It doesn't say anything about forecasting abilities. So far, all climate models have failed horrendously at forecasts. That doesn't say that they will continue to do so.
Feel free to actually research the topic before posting then. As to your specific skin condition that's completely beside the point. You're correct in that it's alleviated by removing oil from the skin but the norm is for the skin to _become_ rashed if oil is removed by excessive showering (see link below).
Tell me, do you believe in evolution? If so, do you believe the human skin evolved under daily wash&soap conditions?
Yes, and that short answer is scientifically unsound since it only takes TSI into account. That's only one of many ways the sun affects the earth, and was the whole reason for my previous post.
No, science does not care whatsoever who funds the work as long as the paper is valid, supported by subsequent research and the hypothesis not falsified later on.
The attack on you was on your personal knowledge, i.e the message you posted. Not the messenger.
After having thought about it, sorry. The point is to have a revelation yourself, me sending you links wouldn't be that much different of an experience from what you've got by reading reports.
After having studied the Climategate files my own revelation was: Phil Jones is not a valid scientific source. Gavin/RC is not a valid scientific source. UAE is not a valid scientific source.
Yours may of course differ, but it needs to be yours:)
Slashdot Mirror
... and many forget when it began. In 2002.
Sony Ericsson P800 - http://www.flickr.com/photos/andyrkett/4368260369/
No, you cannot say that from first hand experience since it isn't true. Tell me, why do you post lies on the Internet?
(hint: atolls grow with the sea level. you need to be careful not to extract more fresh water than they get from rain though - but that has nothing to do with rising sea levels)
Really?
"In this clip professor Nils Axel Morner, from Stockholm University travels to the Maldives and finds out that the ocean levels have dropped in recent years."
http://www.google.se/search?q=morner+maldives
(as a fellow Swede I'm somewhat proud of our professor, one of the world's most renowned when it comes to sea level studies and who's visited the Maldives plenty of times)
You have no basis for your claims. The GP has
Feel free to realize that whatever you write now it applies to your own post more than the GP.
Also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo
1) No, we only need to look at births to validate the GP.
2) You have no basis for your claims. The GP has - the trends.
You fail at both statistics and factual knowledge. My guess would be that you have a racist agenda.
So far no workers (and of course not the general public) at the plant have received dangerous levels of radiation (source WNN)
The same tsunami that hit the plant also hit a hydro dam nearby and obliterated 1800 homes and caused several deaths (source Sydney Morning Herald)
Remind me what's important again?
His calculations are based on facts. Yours on ignorance.
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=xx&v=25
Not in Sweden, where Minecraft is developed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_holidays_in_Sweden#Official_public_holidays
If you have an original X10 (Donut) there's already an Eclair update available for it and Gingerbread is coming this summer.
http://blogs.sonyericsson.com/products/2011/03/25/update-on-xperia%E2%84%A2-x10/
Well there IS an official Minecraft port on the way to Android and iOS
http://www.engadget.com/2011/02/23/minecraft-coming-to-android-too/
beginning to release poisons that will kill tens of thousands of people nearby
Why do you post lies on teh Intarnetz?
Humans got along just fine with _only_ social means of communication for quite some time ;) It seems to be a case of the law of averages over big numbers.
A naïve model would've performed better. You cannot claim model validation if the null hypothesis holds.
Just to state something that really should be obvious to anyone interested in the scientific method:
It's trivial to create a model that can hindcast anything. It doesn't say anything about forecasting abilities.
So far, all climate models have failed horrendously at forecasts. That doesn't say that they will continue to do so.
Things, difficult.
... and that's why Facebook, not Bing, is Google's biggest competitor.
They've known this for years.
Feel free to actually research the topic before posting then. As to your specific skin condition that's completely beside the point. You're correct in that it's alleviated by removing oil from the skin but the norm is for the skin to _become_ rashed if oil is removed by excessive showering (see link below).
Tell me, do you believe in evolution? If so, do you believe the human skin evolved under daily wash&soap conditions?
http://www.pharmacytimes.com/issue/pharmacy/2001/2001-11/2001-11-6820
Yeah, why let science and facts stand in the way of random social conventions that are bad for you :)
FYI; Taking a shower every day is bad for your skin. Really.
Yes, and that short answer is scientifically unsound since it only takes TSI into account. That's only one of many ways the sun affects the earth, and was the whole reason for my previous post.
The sun was more active during the latter half of the 20th century than ever before in recorded history
The sun is currently more quiet than it has been for several hundred years
Feel free to pick any one of several suggested ways for changes in the sun to affect earth. There are quite a few.
There are a few slightly different historical maps (depending on how far back you want to go) available, but this is at least a start: http://astrogeek.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/nmp_migration.gif
I did read something about it doing regular small scale circular motions beside the long term drifting. Maybe that's what you mean.
No, science does not care whatsoever who funds the work as long as the paper is valid, supported by subsequent research and the hypothesis not falsified later on.
The attack on you was on your personal knowledge, i.e the message you posted. Not the messenger.
It seems I was correct.
Climategate search engine: http://www.climate-gate.org/
You might want to look at
tag: gavin
tag: realclimate
I see you attack the messenger instead of the message. Myself I like science, so, can you refute the papers referenced by CO2 Science?
If you can't you're just wasting everyone's time, and at the same time displaying your own ignorance as to how science works.
After having thought about it, sorry. The point is to have a revelation yourself, me sending you links wouldn't be that much different of an experience from what you've got by reading reports.
After having studied the Climategate files my own revelation was: Phil Jones is not a valid scientific source. Gavin/RC is not a valid scientific source. UAE is not a valid scientific source.
Yours may of course differ, but it needs to be yours :)