They do not test the more advanced concepts that, at least in the UK, used to be taught in school for O'levels e.g. simple calculus etc.
Calculus got replaced by probability and statistics, which isn't necessarily easier, but is arguably more relevant for the average 16 year old. Calculus continues at A level, and you'd expect someone intending to do physics to do A level maths. The old maths O levels were pretty light on statistics.
simple calculus or complex numbers
I don't recall complex numbers being in the maths O level, or AO 30 years ago. Not the Oxford syllabus, anyway.
True, but the school system used to do that by providing a wide differentiation between students instead of awarding huge numbers A grades
The point of education isn't to provide differentiation for employers, though. I'd be pretty miffed if I had worked hard, but was awarded a lower grade than if I had worked as hard but been a year older, just to satisfy a requirement for differentiation.
improved to the point where huge numbers of students are now reaching the A-grade standard of 30 years ago
There has been a lot of research done in terms of optimising teaching strategies in the last 30 years, so improvement in ability isn't impossible. There were lots of innovations in the previous 30 years too (not all successful). It's difficult to exactly compare results from 30 years ago to now, though, as the syllabus has changed (e.g. change of calculus to statistics) and also varied between exam boards even 30 years ago. So it would take quite a bit of effort to find exactly corresponding questions and then compare those to determine if on those common questions the performance was as good now, or better. I am sure someone has done this by now, so I will see if I can find anything on that.
In terms of PISA, there is a requirement to have a lowest common denominator test, it's true, to have a level playing field, so you are right that it does complicate comparisons between nations at higher levels of complexity of question because of this.
It can't be isostatic rebound, as that wouldn't explain the increase above present levels. However, if the baltic was blocked until a land or ice barrier was broken, it would explain it. That certainly happened in other regions. It's a bit odd to use a graph from a very small part of the world to argue that sea level was higher 10,000 years ago.
What has that got to do with sea levels 10,000 years ago? You are engaging in misdirection. I don't know where you got the graph you posted earlier (other than Wikipedia) as it seems not to be the one normally referenced, even by Judith Curry (an AGW sceptic).
What caused the Earth to warm and sea levels to rise [nasa.gov] about 400 feet in the last 10,000 years?
For most of that period the Earth did not warm, in fact it got cooler. But large areas of ice take a long time to melt. If you get a drink at 1C, and put an ice cube in it, the ice cube will melt, even as the temperature of the drink falls. Obviously, in the case of increased sea level, we are talking about ice on land melting, not just sea ice. The warming occurred from 21000 to 10000 years ago, roughly (some brief reversions excepted), and then cooled from 8000 years ago until 200 years ago.
Except it is. There is 1 molecule of CO2 for every 2500 molecules of air at the current 400ppm concentration, and yet we're supposed to accept this one molecule has the heat radiating ability to raise the temperature of 2499 other molecules by 1 degree Celsius, even though CO2 on absorbs less than 11% of reflected IR?
It has been known for 150 years that concentrations of CO2 of the level found in the atmosphere will trap heat.
If CO2 can produce that amount of heat we should be using it to power our cities.
It doesn't produce heat, it just prevents its loss to space, much as a blanket doesn't produce heat, but still keeps you warm.
In reality, someone did an analysis of the records, taking out those places that are now near a carpark, etc., and restricting the measurements just to rural areas. The result was an increase in the global warming trend (although my a tiny amount). This is what is called a sensitivity analysis, and shows the trend is not particularly sensitive to whether the stations are in urban areas or not. Obviously the temporary output from a car exhaust is another matter, but extreme outliers that do not match close stations are examined, or often automatically excluded.
Actually, I see the blip you are looking at. But I don't know where the graph comes from, as it's not the wikipedia page, which has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In the graph the present day is on the left, during the period of dramatic rise. The first graph of the tick to the right is 20,000 years ago, and 10,000 years before present is half way, showing a sea level about 30m below present (eyeballing it) on that graph. You've misread the graph.
Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century.
Sea levels were lower 10,000 years ago, but about 40m. That is why there are (slightly younger), towns underwater across the world.
P.S. Saying that he can't control the use of images of his work is like saying that an advertiser could use your recording as long as they got someone to tape it off the radio for them.
Continuing to use the image after the error was discovered is not the same thing as continuing to use the image after finding out that a litagious copycat thinks he has a right to copies of photos of the copy he made.
The artist does have a right to representations of his artwork used for commercial purposes, though. Let's say you recorded a version of Robert Johnson's Crossroads (He's long dead, it's not under copyright now). If someone used that recording to advertise liquor, you would probably be annoyed if you were not paid the required mechanical royalties on the recording, not the songwriting. And your recording of Crossroads would be a cover version, so not completely original. The statue was a 'cover version' of the Statue of Liberty.
Slashdot Mirror
No, I asked what mentioning the Medieval Warm Period had to do with things 10,000 years ago.
They do not test the more advanced concepts that, at least in the UK, used to be taught in school for O'levels e.g. simple calculus etc.
Calculus got replaced by probability and statistics, which isn't necessarily easier, but is arguably more relevant for the average 16 year old. Calculus continues at A level, and you'd expect someone intending to do physics to do A level maths. The old maths O levels were pretty light on statistics.
simple calculus or complex numbers
I don't recall complex numbers being in the maths O level, or AO 30 years ago. Not the Oxford syllabus, anyway.
True, but the school system used to do that by providing a wide differentiation between students instead of awarding huge numbers A grades
The point of education isn't to provide differentiation for employers, though. I'd be pretty miffed if I had worked hard, but was awarded a lower grade than if I had worked as hard but been a year older, just to satisfy a requirement for differentiation.
improved to the point where huge numbers of students are now reaching the A-grade standard of 30 years ago
There has been a lot of research done in terms of optimising teaching strategies in the last 30 years, so improvement in ability isn't impossible. There were lots of innovations in the previous 30 years too (not all successful). It's difficult to exactly compare results from 30 years ago to now, though, as the syllabus has changed (e.g. change of calculus to statistics) and also varied between exam boards even 30 years ago. So it would take quite a bit of effort to find exactly corresponding questions and then compare those to determine if on those common questions the performance was as good now, or better. I am sure someone has done this by now, so I will see if I can find anything on that.
In terms of PISA, there is a requirement to have a lowest common denominator test, it's true, to have a level playing field, so you are right that it does complicate comparisons between nations at higher levels of complexity of question because of this.
It can't be isostatic rebound, as that wouldn't explain the increase above present levels. However, if the baltic was blocked until a land or ice barrier was broken, it would explain it. That certainly happened in other regions. It's a bit odd to use a graph from a very small part of the world to argue that sea level was higher 10,000 years ago.
What has that got to do with sea levels 10,000 years ago? You are engaging in misdirection. I don't know where you got the graph you posted earlier (other than Wikipedia) as it seems not to be the one normally referenced, even by Judith Curry (an AGW sceptic).
Yes. Even Bjarne said (something like): "Inside C++ is a smaller, cleaner language trying to get out".
Probably all the good bits of C++11 and later, without the legacy.
The data is available for download.
What caused the Earth to warm and sea levels to rise [nasa.gov] about 400 feet in the last 10,000 years?
For most of that period the Earth did not warm, in fact it got cooler. But large areas of ice take a long time to melt. If you get a drink at 1C, and put an ice cube in it, the ice cube will melt, even as the temperature of the drink falls. Obviously, in the case of increased sea level, we are talking about ice on land melting, not just sea ice. The warming occurred from 21000 to 10000 years ago, roughly (some brief reversions excepted), and then cooled from 8000 years ago until 200 years ago.
Except it is. There is 1 molecule of CO2 for every 2500 molecules of air at the current 400ppm concentration, and yet we're supposed to accept this one molecule has the heat radiating ability to raise the temperature of 2499 other molecules by 1 degree Celsius, even though CO2 on absorbs less than 11% of reflected IR?
It has been known for 150 years that concentrations of CO2 of the level found in the atmosphere will trap heat.
If CO2 can produce that amount of heat we should be using it to power our cities.
It doesn't produce heat, it just prevents its loss to space, much as a blanket doesn't produce heat, but still keeps you warm.
Be sure to physically check those stations to make sure they are not in a carpark next to a running vehicle like the one reporting record breaking temperatures in Scotland.
In reality, someone did an analysis of the records, taking out those places that are now near a carpark, etc., and restricting the measurements just to rural areas. The result was an increase in the global warming trend (although my a tiny amount). This is what is called a sensitivity analysis, and shows the trend is not particularly sensitive to whether the stations are in urban areas or not. Obviously the temporary output from a car exhaust is another matter, but extreme outliers that do not match close stations are examined, or often automatically excluded.
Two times hotter would be 327C, as temperature is measured in Kelvin!
Read Cowtan et al, 2015.
Research has shown that earth's climate isn't stable.
True
Research can't show us what the proper climate should be.
True
Research cannot show us how much co2 and other gases affect the climate
The models are pretty good.
Research cannot even predict next day's weather.
Massively false.
Everything will always be in balance. If you have a long period of high temps you'll have a period with low temps
The earth is not a closed system, so false
Sometimes you get ice ages sometimes you get scorching periods with huge fauna and flora.
The mechanisms driving the ice ages are largely known.
Even if it will become 2 times hotter, the planet will cool down again, eventually and dinosaurs might come back again.
The temperature of the earth is about 300K. Twice as hot would be about 600K, or about 327C
What increase in solar output? There hasn't been one.
Actually, I see the blip you are looking at. But I don't know where the graph comes from, as it's not the wikipedia page, which has https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
In the graph the present day is on the left, during the period of dramatic rise. The first graph of the tick to the right is 20,000 years ago, and 10,000 years before present is half way, showing a sea level about 30m below present (eyeballing it) on that graph. You've misread the graph.
I'm debating so that is provable false. Why were sea levels 10 meters higher than they are now 10,000 years ago.
They weren't.
https://judithcurry.com/2011/0...
From the IPCC AR4
Global sea level rose by about 120 m during the several millennia that followed the end of the last ice age (approximately 21,000 years ago), and stabilised between 3,000 and 2,000 years ago. Sea level indicators suggest that global sea level did not change significantly from then until the late 19th century.
Sea levels were lower 10,000 years ago, but about 40m. That is why there are (slightly younger), towns underwater across the world.
You are right, we can't do anything about current solar energy variations. The output of the sun has been falling for decades.
Which old record, where? In some places in Europe, it's breaking the record set less than half a decade previously.
Correct, but the numbers are accurate if you swap the unit.
But yes, you look to have used grams in the calculation of cost.
Correct, but the numbers are accurate if you swap the unit.
The price of the gold in a TV would be different.
It's an international standard, in which the EU was a part of. so your assertion is demonstrably false.
It sounds like it had a reserve price, which is pretty normal in auctions.
Grams, not ounces.
P.S. Saying that he can't control the use of images of his work is like saying that an advertiser could use your recording as long as they got someone to tape it off the radio for them.
Continuing to use the image after the error was discovered is not the same thing as continuing to use the image after finding out that a litagious copycat thinks he has a right to copies of photos of the copy he made.
The artist does have a right to representations of his artwork used for commercial purposes, though. Let's say you recorded a version of Robert Johnson's Crossroads (He's long dead, it's not under copyright now). If someone used that recording to advertise liquor, you would probably be annoyed if you were not paid the required mechanical royalties on the recording, not the songwriting. And your recording of Crossroads would be a cover version, so not completely original. The statue was a 'cover version' of the Statue of Liberty.