What actual scientific proof ? Judging from that graph, sea level wasn't rising all that quickly 4000 years ago. Most of the ice melt stopped 8000 years ago, because all the big ice sheets were gone. This century sea level rise started to accelerate again due to AGW.
We are, at this moment in planetary history, at all time lows for atmospheric CO2. Historically we should be around the average of about 1600-1800ppm.
Yes, as the sun is getting brighter, a very slow feedback due to increased rock weathering reduces the CO2. Historic CO2 values of 1600-1800 ppm, combined with a modern bright sun would make the earth really hot.
Please explain what you mean with "manipulating" data. We all know that every method of measurement has a systematic bias. And we have to deal with that fact, and we do it by trying to determine the systematical bias and subtract it from the data. If that's "manipulating data" to you, then please elaborate a better way to deal with it.
A practical example is the shift from mercury thermometers that were read by hand at certain times in the day to electronic thermometers that were logged continuously. The change in thermometers and measuring moments resulted in a sudden small jump in the temperature record. Climate scientists identify these sudden jumps, and add an adjustment to compensate for them. To some people that may sound like "manipulation", but in reality it's error reduction. The original raw data, all the changes, as well as the methods used to identify the jumps are all documented, by the way.
Another example is the measurement of sea surface temperatures. That used to be done by sailors lowering a bucket in the sea, pulling it back up, sticking a thermometer in the water, and writing down the temperature. Nowadays, there's a continuous electronic measurement of the temperature of water inlets in the ship's hull. The new method is more accurate, but has a clearly visible offset compared to the old method.
And pretty much all of these companies are full tilt into research into alternatives.
Solar is a fast growing alternative and the PV panels are made by completely different players. The Big Oil companies have no useful expertise in manufacturing or installing those. They don't have expertise in coal, uranium, or wind either.
It's deliberately poor, yes. With a bit more thought, you can do multiple things at once and still do them correctly. It's not like it's controlling a nuclear reactor or a jumbo jet. There's only a handful of things going on at the same time.
AGU promotes free speech and free science. They just don't care for blatant denial and fact twisting done for political and business motives. You may not like the settled science, but the fact is that nobody has managed to propose a credible alternative theory to explain the rising temperatures, rising sea level, and widespread melting of glaciers and arctic ice, or provide credible raw data that shows all these things aren't happening.
Go ahead and show us better data. I'm sure Exxon can fund the search. After all, they have a huge vested interested in refuting the data you claim is bad.
On the other hand, what if the old code has a security bug, and Apple wants to provide a fix. Would you refuse the fix just because you have a hunch that it might contain a back door ? How would you know the existing code doesn't already have a back door ?
Slashdot Mirror
Canada and Siberia and Finland, get ready to be breadbaskets of the world!
Unlikely. The low angle of the sun means a lot less photosynthesis. Also, a lot of that land will turn into swamps.
What actual scientific proof ? Judging from that graph, sea level wasn't rising all that quickly 4000 years ago. Most of the ice melt stopped 8000 years ago, because all the big ice sheets were gone. This century sea level rise started to accelerate again due to AGW.
People can have good or bad reasons for not wanting nuclear solutions to the CO2 problem, but that doesn't mean the CO2 problem doesn't exist.
We are, at this moment in planetary history, at all time lows for atmospheric CO2. Historically we should be around the average of about 1600-1800ppm.
Yes, as the sun is getting brighter, a very slow feedback due to increased rock weathering reduces the CO2. Historic CO2 values of 1600-1800 ppm, combined with a modern bright sun would make the earth really hot.
A lot of people didn't believe in the dot-com bubble either.
Insurance companies care about this kind of shit, which has nothing to do with hurricanes: https://www.washingtonpost.com...
So, exactly how many mm/year was it rising 4000 years ago ? I don't think that little image is very helpful to determine that.
That's why there's chip & pin, as well as contactless payment options.
A mobile hotspot + attached Windows laptop downloading OS updates is a great way to waste a bunch of data unnoticed.
No, I don't have Telstra. I was just comparing the new speeds with my current plan.
Instead of going back and re-measuring everything,
Excellent idea! We'll simply go back to 1880 and start re-measuring everything. You're a genius!
Well, at least my current plan doesn't charge for exceeding the cap. It just reduces the speed to a crawl for the remainder of the month.
No, exactly 1Gbps.
At that speed, it would only take 8 seconds to consume my entire monthly 1GB data plan.
Exxon has been caught sponsoring religion. It's a good principle to stay away from that.
but corporate money is "bad"
No, but Exxon has funded enough anti-science groups that their motives are shown to be bad.
Please explain what you mean with "manipulating" data. We all know that every method of measurement has a systematic bias. And we have to deal with that fact, and we do it by trying to determine the systematical bias and subtract it from the data. If that's "manipulating data" to you, then please elaborate a better way to deal with it.
A practical example is the shift from mercury thermometers that were read by hand at certain times in the day to electronic thermometers that were logged continuously. The change in thermometers and measuring moments resulted in a sudden small jump in the temperature record. Climate scientists identify these sudden jumps, and add an adjustment to compensate for them. To some people that may sound like "manipulation", but in reality it's error reduction. The original raw data, all the changes, as well as the methods used to identify the jumps are all documented, by the way. Another example is the measurement of sea surface temperatures. That used to be done by sailors lowering a bucket in the sea, pulling it back up, sticking a thermometer in the water, and writing down the temperature. Nowadays, there's a continuous electronic measurement of the temperature of water inlets in the ship's hull. The new method is more accurate, but has a clearly visible offset compared to the old method.
And pretty much all of these companies are full tilt into research into alternatives.
Solar is a fast growing alternative and the PV panels are made by completely different players. The Big Oil companies have no useful expertise in manufacturing or installing those. They don't have expertise in coal, uranium, or wind either.
A) http://berkeleyearth.org/ Your turn.
That's not poor design, that's deliberate design.
It's deliberately poor, yes. With a bit more thought, you can do multiple things at once and still do them correctly. It's not like it's controlling a nuclear reactor or a jumbo jet. There's only a handful of things going on at the same time.
AGU promotes free speech and free science. They just don't care for blatant denial and fact twisting done for political and business motives. You may not like the settled science, but the fact is that nobody has managed to propose a credible alternative theory to explain the rising temperatures, rising sea level, and widespread melting of glaciers and arctic ice, or provide credible raw data that shows all these things aren't happening.
They are just proposing to cut the financial ties. Exxon can of course continue to produce as much peer reviewed science articles as they have before.
There's no such thing as the temperature of a cup of coffee! There is only motion of the molecules!
Go ahead and show us better data. I'm sure Exxon can fund the search. After all, they have a huge vested interested in refuting the data you claim is bad.
On the other hand, what if the old code has a security bug, and Apple wants to provide a fix. Would you refuse the fix just because you have a hunch that it might contain a back door ? How would you know the existing code doesn't already have a back door ?