Technicality, but VAT is 20% of the original price.
So 1GBP is 83p ex VAT
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)
There is something different between the CO2 that you exhale and "fossil CO2"
that allows infrared radiation to be absorbed by one and not the other?
But this isn't it.
Left as an exercise as to what the important difference is in this case.
Hint, CO2 that is exhaled contains trace amounts of C14. Fossil CO2 doesn't.
But it's all part of the conspiracy. Those evil liberal warmist archivers "corrected" the page in their database so that it gave the results they wanted. They were just correcting the raw data from their spiders before publishing. We want the original raw data and they won't give it to us!
We need the original waveforms on the ethernet cable. We don't want CRC checks, TCP retransmits and the like "correcting" the data. Have you even tried to get this data from them. "We don't have it. We processed it and immediately threw it away." It's obviously fraud at the highest levels all the way down.
Well, you've convinced me.
Good. That's an improvement in your knowledge then.
Groupthink is science
Oops. Maybe not. You've confused cause and effect and clearly not understood what I wrote.
and CO2 is the sole problem.
Oh dear. The biggest problem here right now is your lack of critical thinking.
I assume since you are passionate about CO2
Passionate probably isn't the best word but I'll accept this in the sentiment I think you intended.
and saving the planet from destruction by this gas
Nope. I don't have kids and will never have kids. I merely need the economy to survive for another 50 years or so and it will definitely no longer be of any concern to me at all.
that's only destructive when it comes from humans
What!? It's fossil CO2 that is the problem. The primary sources are the burning of fossil fuels and the manufacture of concrete. Volcanoes are another source, small compared to the previous two but have had significant climate impact in the past. Their biggest climate impact now is short term cooling effects due to aerosols.
you will soon discontinuing breathing, yes?
You can start with faulty premises, apply valid logic and arrive at an incorrect conclusion.
You can start with accurate premises, apply faulty logic and arrive at an incorrect conclusion.
You've gone one better. You've started with faulty premises, applied incorrect logic and arrived at a wrong conclusion. Unfortunately for you, two wrongs don't make a right or, as Pauli once so aptly put it, you aren't even wrong.
If there's one variable that affects the Earth's climate, it's the output of the Sun. If there's a second variable that affects the Earth's climate, it's the kinematics of the Earth about the Sun. Neither should be considered constant.
I don't get this. Neither are considered constant. The kinematics are sending us towards an ice age (15Kyears). The solar output is falling - slightly (which would lead to cooler temperatures) although I don't know whether that is expected to be a long (centuries) or short (years to decades) term thing.
But temperatures are rising. Something is overwhelming those natural effects.
One good suit is worth a thousand resumes.