Well, since the last ice age it's something like 450 feet higher but since the Great Melt its been rising at a pretty steady rate. Certainly over the last several centuries it's been a fairly constant rise. Nothing to do with "AGW". It's just natural variation.
Update: And it wasn't, but actually a known X-ray source getting caught by mistake. The story of what happened is still pretty neat. Scroll to the bottom for the rest of the "...nevermind."
I know a divergence when I see one. I know how hindcasting should work. I understand model tuning. I know what an ensemble is. I'm a software developer in a scientific discipline. The thing is I no longer give a fuck what people like you think because I know you're wrong and I've known for 10 years or more that you're wrong. Yet still you keep coming back, somehow, still being wrong and not knowing what the fuck you're talking about, dissembling, ignoring the problems, telling lies, making up bullshit, not understanding statistics, shutting dissenters out of the debate, you name it.
It's actually becoming quite hilarious to watch public trust in science implode. It used to be something that I found quite distressing, but now I see it as an inevitable process of renewal as the frauds and snake-oil salesman at work in today's institutions turn them and themselves into laughing stocks. Of course the truth will bubble to the surface. It doesn't respect reputations or consensus, does it.
It's a very simple qualification called looking at the divergence of lines representing actual reality and models, on one or more graphs, and laughing my arse off. You could easily learn this skill too but the prerequisite is to remove your head from up your own backside, so I'm not sure whether you'll succeed.
Precisely the problem. The Greens have prevented the kind of land management you need in order to prevent brushfires spreading. The end result? More , bigger and more deadly brushfires. Crazy loons.
Remarkable, isn't it, that a paper like this gets rejected for flaws when a paper by Michael Mann, like the hockey stick, passes review despite the fact that it's a massive pile of statistically invalid cock.
Though it might not be a flaw. As Nick Lane points out, evolution is cleverer that you are. For example, the nerves that cross the front of the retina could have evolved to act as wave guides improving vision, not making it worse compared to say, the eye of an octopus which is "correct" as you might design it.
I believe Apple are up to OpenGL 3.3? Well GL is at 4.4 right now, which is more or less feature parity with the D3D 11 that was released 3 or 4 years ago. So you see how throwing money at the problem (Microsoft) results in far better, more robust and more feature complete solutions than waiting for some greasy students to finish their open source coursework.
Regardless of driver development, if you ask actual developers they'll tell you they prefer DirectX to OpenGL by a mile, mostly because of tool chain support. And why wouldn't they? They're not dicking about with open source projects, they've got actual mortgages to pay and deadlines to meet.
I've got a 7990 and have had no trouble playing any games (on Windows). I think they're all D3D9 and D3D10/11 games however, so I can't comment on OpenGL games. I develop OpenGL visualisation software (debug GL 4.3 drivers loaded at the moment) with an ATI card and I've had no problems there either.
Did you read what I wrote? Really? In the terms of which you speak anything not taxed at 100% is a subsidy. If the idiots at the WTO want to interpret some lack of tax or tax rate X as a subsidy then that's up to them. I couldn't give a flying fuck. They're probably socialist twats like you too, or else have some other dog in the race.
A tax break is not a subsidy. Let me repeat that a tax break is not a subsidy.
If your little Marxist pea-brain makes the assumption that the State owns 100% of production, that is to say, 100% of GDP and is kind enough to give some of it back by not taxing people at 100%, well, I suppose one could argue that it's a subsidy. In that sense the State subsidises absolutely everything. But just to be clear, right now in liberal democracies where we have the concept of private ownership, the rule of law and so on, this is not the case. Perhaps it is in your stupid fucking socialist utopia, but not here, no.
How many fucking tax payers do you know who want to pay subsidies for "renewable" bullshit; extra charges on their already high fuel bills? I don't know anyone who does except some fucking lunatic greens who live in hobbit houses and poo digested lentils into soil toilets. Well, you can all go fuck yourselves. If you gave a crap about prices you'd be arguing for lower taxes on fossil fuels. But you aren't. You're arguing for parity, i.e. the people who pay the bills should pay another bill to ensure that the bills they pay are the same regardless of the fuel choice they make.
Really, what is wrong with you pea-brained Marxist fuckwits? You fuck the market up with subsidy and taxation and then come whining like little bitches when someone points it out.
Optimising an engine like that is a non-trivial exercise, especially with newish hardware. So no, they're not crap developers, they're developers with time and financial constraints who can only achieve so much before release.
There's a difference between philosophical nothing and physics nothing from what I understand. Physics nothing seems to have a property, "can fluctuate in a quantum mechanical manner". But philosophical nothing has no properties. Of course one could argue philosophical nothing has the single property "has no properties", which would make it something of a paradox.
It would be similar to people from Iraqi coming over to the USA and physically forcing as many people as they could to wear headscarfs under the argument of improving our morals
I expect you're one of those people who thinks Venezuela's current government is "forging a bold new alternative to neo-liberalism", aren't you.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, since the last ice age it's something like 450 feet higher but since the Great Melt its been rising at a pretty steady rate. Certainly over the last several centuries it's been a fairly constant rise. Nothing to do with "AGW". It's just natural variation.
Move along. Nothing to see here.
But this is slashdot. If we're childless it's not for want of running around dribbling with our trousers around our ankles.
"A spokesman for the oil industry expressed optimism that new techniques will eventually open up the Monterey formation."
Well he's right. Fracking technology is moving along at a good clip. I'm sure these unrecoverable reserves will soon become recoverable.
Yawn.
Quite a lot of tech and research in plasma physics and fusion paid for from the defence budget. You know, like most of it.
I know a divergence when I see one. I know how hindcasting should work. I understand model tuning. I know what an ensemble is. I'm a software developer in a scientific discipline. The thing is I no longer give a fuck what people like you think because I know you're wrong and I've known for 10 years or more that you're wrong. Yet still you keep coming back, somehow, still being wrong and not knowing what the fuck you're talking about, dissembling, ignoring the problems, telling lies, making up bullshit, not understanding statistics, shutting dissenters out of the debate, you name it.
It's actually becoming quite hilarious to watch public trust in science implode. It used to be something that I found quite distressing, but now I see it as an inevitable process of renewal as the frauds and snake-oil salesman at work in today's institutions turn them and themselves into laughing stocks. Of course the truth will bubble to the surface. It doesn't respect reputations or consensus, does it.
It's a very simple qualification called looking at the divergence of lines representing actual reality and models, on one or more graphs, and laughing my arse off. You could easily learn this skill too but the prerequisite is to remove your head from up your own backside, so I'm not sure whether you'll succeed.
Good luck with it anyway.
Also these prognostications are based on "models" which have absolutely zero skill.
The first post criticising a "denier" is made by an anonymous coward. Remarkable.
Precisely the problem. The Greens have prevented the kind of land management you need in order to prevent brushfires spreading. The end result? More , bigger and more deadly brushfires. Crazy loons.
Remarkable, isn't it, that a paper like this gets rejected for flaws when a paper by Michael Mann, like the hockey stick, passes review despite the fact that it's a massive pile of statistically invalid cock.
Though it might not be a flaw. As Nick Lane points out, evolution is cleverer that you are. For example, the nerves that cross the front of the retina could have evolved to act as wave guides improving vision, not making it worse compared to say, the eye of an octopus which is "correct" as you might design it.
I believe Apple are up to OpenGL 3.3? Well GL is at 4.4 right now, which is more or less feature parity with the D3D 11 that was released 3 or 4 years ago. So you see how throwing money at the problem (Microsoft) results in far better, more robust and more feature complete solutions than waiting for some greasy students to finish their open source coursework.
Regardless of driver development, if you ask actual developers they'll tell you they prefer DirectX to OpenGL by a mile, mostly because of tool chain support. And why wouldn't they? They're not dicking about with open source projects, they've got actual mortgages to pay and deadlines to meet.
I've got a 7990 and have had no trouble playing any games (on Windows). I think they're all D3D9 and D3D10/11 games however, so I can't comment on OpenGL games. I develop OpenGL visualisation software (debug GL 4.3 drivers loaded at the moment) with an ATI card and I've had no problems there either.
Did you read what I wrote? Really? In the terms of which you speak anything not taxed at 100% is a subsidy. If the idiots at the WTO want to interpret some lack of tax or tax rate X as a subsidy then that's up to them. I couldn't give a flying fuck. They're probably socialist twats like you too, or else have some other dog in the race.
A tax break is not a subsidy. Let me repeat that a tax break is not a subsidy.
If your little Marxist pea-brain makes the assumption that the State owns 100% of production, that is to say, 100% of GDP and is kind enough to give some of it back by not taxing people at 100%, well, I suppose one could argue that it's a subsidy. In that sense the State subsidises absolutely everything. But just to be clear, right now in liberal democracies where we have the concept of private ownership, the rule of law and so on, this is not the case. Perhaps it is in your stupid fucking socialist utopia, but not here, no.
Only people who're either earning a lot or not paying the bills in their house would make such an idiotic comment.
How many fucking tax payers do you know who want to pay subsidies for "renewable" bullshit; extra charges on their already high fuel bills? I don't know anyone who does except some fucking lunatic greens who live in hobbit houses and poo digested lentils into soil toilets. Well, you can all go fuck yourselves. If you gave a crap about prices you'd be arguing for lower taxes on fossil fuels. But you aren't. You're arguing for parity, i.e. the people who pay the bills should pay another bill to ensure that the bills they pay are the same regardless of the fuel choice they make.
Really, what is wrong with you pea-brained Marxist fuckwits? You fuck the market up with subsidy and taxation and then come whining like little bitches when someone points it out.
What is a "finished product" in software development? There are always further optimisations to be made, bugs to be fixed, content to be added.
Optimising an engine like that is a non-trivial exercise, especially with newish hardware. So no, they're not crap developers, they're developers with time and financial constraints who can only achieve so much before release.
There's a difference between philosophical nothing and physics nothing from what I understand. Physics nothing seems to have a property, "can fluctuate in a quantum mechanical manner". But philosophical nothing has no properties. Of course one could argue philosophical nothing has the single property "has no properties", which would make it something of a paradox.
I've got a headache.
Hahahaha. Oh the hilarity. Venezuela, progressive paradise.
It's possible you could be more naive and stupid, but I'm not quite sure how.
I expect you're one of those people who thinks Venezuela's current government is "forging a bold new alternative to neo-liberalism", aren't you.