The otolaryngologist cleared their voice and spoke
We are Borg.
The otolaryngologist cleared their voice and spoke
We are Borg.
There's something dodgy with pricing going on though.
AAISP offer an ADSL only copper pair for 10GBP/month. The only difference between this and a full telephone service is that there's no dial tone and no telephone number. It's still exactly the same wires as when you go to BT and have the full telephone service. I'm pretty sure they're actually reselling a BT offering.
I think AAISP might put a recorded message on the line - because BT engineers were apt to just take any silent pair instead of following the correct procedure to take an unused pair - AAISP customers would suddenly find their ADSL had stopped working and investigation would discover that part of the route back to the exchange had been disconnected and the wires reused for someone else (probably due to a fault on that other persons line)
IIRC BT charges 19GBP/month for line rental. So they're claiming that it's an additional 9GBP/month to provide the dial tone. (with call charges on top of that) Ofcom appear to be saying that that's excessive and they need to reduce their line rental by 5GBP/month.
Pumping >0C water onto the remaining ice will accelerate the melting
No, not in winter.
The problem in winter is that ice (and snow on top of it) is a good insulator that, once the ice reaches around 1-2m thick causes it to continue to thicken very slowly.
It's one of the reasons why the sea ice minimum is falling faster than the maximum - the arctic winter is cold enough to (almost) completely refreeze every year but that resultant ice isn't thick enough to survive a summer season. That's why there's so much interest in tracking the multi-year ice. That's the thick stuff.
Unfortunately, measuring volume is much harder to do so ice extent and ice area tend to take centre stage even if they're not the best metric for the state of the ice in the arctic.
Pumping water to the top of the ice would allow the ice to thicken much more than it currently can in a single winter.
Also Animal Farm. I think the people are going to be very disappointed to discover that the elites have been replaced with the elites which, of course, will all be the fault of the elites.
Technicality, but VAT is 20% of the original price.
So 1GBP is 83p ex VAT
Different test. Yours is a tautology.
My test: people who admit to using profanity are 100% truthful. People who say they don't are 50/50 truthful.
I show that even if people who don't use profanity are 100% truthful, the claim "I don't use profanity" is a better indicator of being a liar than "I use profanity" even though the only people who lie are those who use profanity.
Your test: people who don't use profanity are 100% truthful - but that's an axiom in my (made up) data because I exclude class 4. only 50% of the ones who do use profanity are truthful - I assign equal numbers to the three extant classes.
I'm not even sure the study is that good.
It seems there are four groups:
People who use profanity and admit it.
People who don't use profanity and admit it.
People who use profanity but don't admit it.
People who don't use profanity but claim to.
If we make the assumption that there's nobody in the last class and the other three classes are all equal sized then people who admit to using profanity will all be honest while only half of the people who claim to not use profanity will be honest.
In fact, I cannot see any way that the people who admit to using profanity can possibly appear less honest than the people who do on this test.
Stick a 3.5mm plug into the headphone jack. solved.
I'm not convinced - on my galaxy note at any rate - that this is guaranteed to work.
I've noticed that when I push the plug in, it detects the plug being inserted and then switches the sound from the internal speakers. I'm not convinced that, unlike old fashioned radios, inserting the plug physically disconnects the internal speakers.
But I could be wrong - it's something I've noticed in passing rather than something I've been looking out for.
CO2 from biological matter doesn't directly matter. (Land use changes that destroy biological matter and don't replace it are a different matter)
If it's plant based then all that CO2 that is released will have been recently extracted from the air to be incorporated into the plants tissues.
If it's animal based then any and all CO2 that is released will, ultimately, have come from the C in plants which, in turn, will have come from CO2 in the air.
it's really, really, easy to tell the difference between CO2 that has its source as the carbon cycle and "fossil" CO2 that has been sequestered for significant lengths of time. "Biological" CO2 will have been recently part of the atmosphere. Because C14 has a moderate half life (6Kyear), it will have needed to be sequestrated for tens to hundreds of millenia before all the (detectable) C14 will have decayed.
Almost all C14 is generated in the upper atmosphere (by thermal neutron capture by N14). Therefore, if the material you are burning, composting, digesting, gives off CO2 that contains C14 then the carbon that it contains (recently) came from the atmosphere.
Why? How could it possibly make sense to "warm" the buoy data rather than "cool" the intake data? We know that the intake data was artificially warmed, that isn't even a question.
Because they're measuring a trend, not absolute temperatures.
it would make no difference if they used kelvin or celsius. The offset isn't important.
I would assume that they are cooling the intake data (I'm pretty sure I saw that when the original v4 data was created but I could be misremembering as there are also adjustments to satellite data as sensors degrade with time) but it makes zero difference when estimating the trend.
(the very inaccurate ones)
You do realize we're talking about a correction in the trend of
The error bars on the measurements are huge compared to this.
If you plot a graph from 1998 up to 2015 using the best estimate and no error bars without this change, then people will tend, when eyeballing, to say that there's no trend. (the trend is statistically indistinguishable from zero - but it's also statistically indistinguishable from the trend in the prior decades)
I haven't seen an equivalent graph that includes this correction but I'm assuming that people will no longer eyeball "no trend" (although the trend using just these years will still be statistically indistinguishable from zero)
Include more data, at either end, and they no longer come to the conclusion of no trend regardless of whether you include this correction.
Whether this additional
It will make a small difference in where we can expect to be in 50 years time in a BAU scenario but as no climate scientist was saying we can afford BAU for another 5 decades even with the unadjusted data then that's a moot point.
If you disagree with the method used for correction of the valitidy of the bias claims, then attack those on their merits.
Indeed. This latest paper was from people who were skeptical about the NOAA corrections.
But when they did their own independent analysis they were forced to admit that the NOAA data actually looked better than the previous data.
They're labeled "deniers" and then told by the ivory tower elitists that they're "backwards rednecks."
Ermmmmm. I'm pretty sure these guys aren't being labeled deniers.
(2) Aren't they talking about data taken on ships by physically reading thermometers to an accuracy less than the claimed effect? As I was taught: If you don't know your error, you haven't made a measurement. In this case the error could be even greater than the effect itself!
Over time the proportion of data contributed by taking measurements on ships has decreased.
NOAA said "hey guys, this has introduced a systematic error into the data and we need to adjust for it"
Other scientists were skeptical.
This group decided to test it. So they took several independent data sets that each used just one measurement so that each dataset is internally consistent.
They then discovered that all the data sets matched the NOAA adjusted combined data better than the previous unadjusted data.
What their work indicates is that the slow migration from ship thermometer to buoy, satellite etc has hidden an extra 0.06C/decade of warming - and that the warming rate over the last several decades is much closer to the rate over the previous decades than was thought.
(It should be pointed out that some statisticians don't accept that there was any statistically significant change in the warming rate over the last several decades even when using the pre NOAA (3b) data. My statistical knowledge isn't sufficient to be able to independently do the changepoint analysis necessary to confirm or refute this)
From where are you getting your figures?
That claims they're down 22% from 1990 levels.
Those exclude LULUCF (land use changes) - perhaps you have inclusive figures? (Although I'd be surprised if LULUCF could be bigger than the significant reductions in everything else.)
It was a hint, not the answer.
Another hint: what is the source of C14?
You've successfully demonstrated in spades your distinct lack of critical thinking. When you're in a hole stop digging (although I doubt you've even realized you're in a hole - Dunningâ"Kruger at its finest)
You have a massage (from the Swedish prime minister).