did you really just ask what has the noaa estimates of sea levels and ice ages over the last 800000 years got to do with the sea levels 10,000 years ago.... sorry can't help you. try googling "sea level history"
->The best numbers? I bet you're the smartest guy you know. I bet your IQ is huge. For someone who isn't a climatologist, pretty happy, yes. Some of the graphs are still up. Raw Data http://www.theborgmatrix.com/g... Fitting it to a curve to get average temperature http://www.theborgmatrix.com/g... Using that to fill in the missing data http://www.theborgmatrix.com/g... Using that to estimate the change in tilt of the earth (further north = higher temp - the white spots in the previous image) http://www.theborgmatrix.com/g...
->I want you to know that sentences like that make it very hard to trust your intelligence I want you to know I almost care.
->Wait, did I just read that you're discounting a measurable change over decades because the yearly rate Nope discounting a rate because the measurements are 10-12,8-13,10-13,9-20 There is no provable pattern there, even though the average goes from 11 to ~15.
->WHAT? What the flying fuck does this have to do with the error margins on contemporary readings!? see graph "raw data". not having the coldest readings biases the data very badly.
think you mean "here's a graph paid for by the alternative energy scientists that ignores sea levels being 10m higher than they are now" just like hadly cru deleted the middle age warm period.
Yep, but when the odd scientist, with a grant that allows them to publish without the permission of the grant donor, actually publishes real science and shows it mostly hogwash, its all 'omfg evil oil companies are funding anti agw research'. when exactly the opposite it true.
What is? There are plenty of vested interests in paying for agw research, from governments wanting more reason to tax people, through manufacturers of alternative energy sources even to the dying oil industry that want perks for its huge "alternative energy investments" Whose handing out grants with a vested interest in disproving agw? name me one company that could possibly have an opposite view that hasn't invested heavily in solar/wind or nuclear.
"sock puppet". So sayeth anonymous coward.... sadly much was lost when www.creditcrunch.co.uk was deleted from the internet. still have all the original research though, just no one will pay me to publish it, not even the oil companies, and apparently anything that doesn't say agw is real wouldn't be accepted by the journals anyway. might redo it tho, just because then ac's cant claim no sources when i quote my own efforts on the topic. thing with science is its repeatable.
paying their salaries. Think it was BP who was one of their biggest donors (so desperate to find and switch to alternative energy sources they gave us the deepwater horizon disaster) but I forget exactly, it was a long time ago.
->The models are getting better. i disagree. I did my own research on estimating an average global temperature before during and after the hadley cru scandal. I got good numbers - great numbers in fact. but the error on that average was still plus or minus a couple of degrees for each year. and no amount of additional readings from the places they come from would change that (didn't collect any readings from the oceans 150 years ago for example).
Plus the number of calibrated stations has collapsed in recent decades. from several thousand to barely a few hundred. and even the sattelites that are now mostly used instead were loosing calibration.
garbage in will be garbage out, no matter how well you model the garbage compactor.
not really a conspiracy, just bad science where only the things the people funding you want said get published. climate isn't the only place that happens a lot.
->climate we as humans consider optimal. So where is it, greenland or morroco?
->Again, we can. We have records of CO2 levels through the ages and we also know what temperatures occurred in those times. however the measurement error is greater than the measurement. which real science would never accept as proof.
->difference between climate and weather that we have proof we cant predict the weather, climate we cant even prove we can measure? is that what you meant?
->anything remotely resembling balance still here after a few billion years, what makes you so arrogent you think you can save it by not using a car. More likely Trump causes thermo nuclear war next week.
->planet must cool down again eventually couple if ice ages and sea levels an average 10 meters higher than they are now barely a few thousand years ago.
wish i hadn't commented so i could mod you up. exactly this. i forgot how much damage being a little less hyperbolic and a little more honest can do to your karma talking climate change on the tinterweb. -1 disagree because the lady on the radio said different everywhere you look.
cant imagine why scientists chasing climate change funding would make a site like that. Plus the "advanced" page looks like a school project sourced from wikipedia.
Slashdot Mirror
But people in their right minds are in very limited supply in the former american republics.
Worse, Android is linux AND java. Hipsters everywhere cry into their caramel lattes everytime it crosses their mind.
http://appinsys.com/GlobalWarm...
did you really just ask what has the noaa estimates of sea levels and ice ages over the last 800000 years got to do with the sea levels 10,000 years ago.... sorry can't help you. try googling "sea level history"
or read my full story
http://forumslide.theborgmatri...
And thanks, now archived for the ages.
http://forumslide.theborgmatri...
->The best numbers? I bet you're the smartest guy you know. I bet your IQ is huge.
For someone who isn't a climatologist, pretty happy, yes.
Some of the graphs are still up.
Raw Data
http://www.theborgmatrix.com/g...
Fitting it to a curve to get average temperature
http://www.theborgmatrix.com/g...
Using that to fill in the missing data
http://www.theborgmatrix.com/g...
Using that to estimate the change in tilt of the earth (further north = higher temp - the white spots in the previous image)
http://www.theborgmatrix.com/g...
->I want you to know that sentences like that make it very hard to trust your intelligence
I want you to know I almost care.
->Wait, did I just read that you're discounting a measurable change over decades because the yearly rate
Nope
discounting a rate because the measurements are
10-12,8-13,10-13,9-20
There is no provable pattern there, even though the average goes from 11 to ~15.
->WHAT? What the flying fuck does this have to do with the error margins on contemporary readings!?
see graph "raw data". not having the coldest readings biases the data very badly.
just like the mediaval warm period never happened eh. https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
think you mean "here's a graph paid for by the alternative energy scientists that ignores sea levels being 10m higher than they are now"
just like hadly cru deleted the middle age warm period.
Yep, but when the odd scientist, with a grant that allows them to publish without the permission of the grant donor, actually publishes real science and shows it mostly hogwash, its all 'omfg evil oil companies are funding anti agw research'. when exactly the opposite it true.
And if it does happen they'll just blame god like they did the last time it happened.
then explain why sea levels were 10 meters higher 10,000 years ago. https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
just the graph will do. https://upload.wikimedia.org/w...
What is? There are plenty of vested interests in paying for agw research, from governments wanting more reason to tax people, through manufacturers of alternative energy sources even to the dying oil industry that want perks for its huge "alternative energy investments"
Whose handing out grants with a vested interest in disproving agw? name me one company that could possibly have an opposite view that hasn't invested heavily in solar/wind or nuclear.
"sock puppet". So sayeth anonymous coward....
sadly much was lost when www.creditcrunch.co.uk was deleted from the internet. still have all the original research though, just no one will pay me to publish it, not even the oil companies, and apparently anything that doesn't say agw is real wouldn't be accepted by the journals anyway. might redo it tho, just because then ac's cant claim no sources when i quote my own efforts on the topic. thing with science is its repeatable.
just beautiful, im keeping this comment for another day. thank you.
https://www.bp.com/en/global/c...
paying their salaries. Think it was BP who was one of their biggest donors (so desperate to find and switch to alternative energy sources they gave us the deepwater horizon disaster) but I forget exactly, it was a long time ago.
->The models are getting better.
i disagree. I did my own research on estimating an average global temperature before during and after the hadley cru scandal. I got good numbers - great numbers in fact. but the error on that average was still plus or minus a couple of degrees for each year. and no amount of additional readings from the places they come from would change that (didn't collect any readings from the oceans 150 years ago for example).
Plus the number of calibrated stations has collapsed in recent decades. from several thousand to barely a few hundred. and even the sattelites that are now mostly used instead were loosing calibration.
garbage in will be garbage out, no matter how well you model the garbage compactor.
not really a conspiracy, just bad science where only the things the people funding you want said get published. climate isn't the only place that happens a lot.
oil companies with no oil have lots of money, and they have been spending in on the likes of Hadley CRU.
I'm debating so that is provable false. Why were sea levels 10 meters higher than they are now 10,000 years ago.
at least you had guts enough not to post ac.
->climate we as humans consider optimal.
So where is it, greenland or morroco?
->Again, we can. We have records of CO2 levels through the ages and we also know what temperatures occurred in those times.
however the measurement error is greater than the measurement. which real science would never accept as proof.
->difference between climate and weather
that we have proof we cant predict the weather, climate we cant even prove we can measure? is that what you meant?
->anything remotely resembling balance
still here after a few billion years, what makes you so arrogent you think you can save it by not using a car. More likely Trump causes thermo nuclear war next week.
->planet must cool down again eventually
couple if ice ages and sea levels an average 10 meters higher than they are now barely a few thousand years ago.
ipad touch keyboard sux.
wish i hadn't commented so i could mod you up. exactly this. i forgot how much damage being a little less hyperbolic and a little more honest can do to your karma talking climate change on the tinterweb. -1 disagree because the lady on the radio said different everywhere you look.
zero debate... great, so no need to spend any more money researching it then..... see how well that goes down.
cant imagine why scientists chasing climate change funding would make a site like that. Plus the "advanced" page looks like a school project sourced from wikipedia.