Hopefully it comes out with a trumpet in hand . <| sep |> I think ahk can read screen color info <| sep |> Black Mirror is a truly terrifying show because many episodes look like the world we will be living in before long . <| sep |> I don ' t though . I entirely ignore the competitive scene and dota media in general . Especially since I don ' t even play regular dota anymore . <| sep |> That GSD is much more moderate than this year ' s westminster CH . <| sep |> Can you elaborate the physics part ? Gladly . The StefanBoltzmann law states that radiant heat emitted from a body is proportional to the fourth power of the body ' s temperature . If we look at the radiant energy emitted from Earth to space via satellites we see ~ bagenal 3720 CLASS 5 constituents . jpg corresponding to specific infrared wavelengths . The valleys of low emission indicate that at these wavelengths , the energy is finally emitted to space from very high up in the atmosphere , where the air temperature is very cold the atmosphere is glowing very dimly at those wavelengths . This is according to StefanBoltzmann ' s law of Emissivity sigmaTemperature 4 . This is happening because the atmosphere contains certain gases that vibrate with variable dipole moments corresponding to those wavelengths , so they absorb the radiant energy coming from the ground . The energy can ' t escape to space until it gets through the atmospheric fog of the socalled greenhouse gases , which doesn ' t happen until up in the high cold upper layers . Now imagine that you make the atmosphere even foggier . The energy can ' t escape until it gets even higher , where the atmosphere is even colder . The emission valleys will get a little deeper because , according to StefanBoltzmann ' s equation , this lowers the emissivity . The planet is now getting more energy from the sun than it is radiating to space , and the energy buildup will cause the atmosphere to warm until the upper layer where energy is finally escaping to space is finally warm enough to radiate as quickly as energy is coming in again according to StefanBoltzmann law . That this occurs in every planet with an atmosphere is incontrovertible fact . We can see it from satellite images . We can shine light at gases in the lab and watch what wavelengths they absorb most strongly at . We can precisely calculate how much warming to expect based on how much we have fogged up the infrared field with GHGs . It is simply physics . This is the basis of our understanding of the greenhouse effect and , consequently , the basis of anthropogenic global warming theory . We would know that humans were warming the earth even if we had never made a single observation of the planet ' s temperature . Is it fair to compare current data to historical data given that accuracy diminishes the further we look back ? Yes . Partly because we have no other choice . If I want to know anything about how the climate of today compares to ancient climates I have to make use of the data I have about past climates . The instrumental records are the most reliable data we have , but if we are careful to thoroughly consider the uncertainty in our paleoclimate data we can gain a lot of insight from comparing the two . The degree of uncertainty is different for each proxy , and all the sources of uncertainty are known better for some proxies than for others e . g . tree rings are extremely accurate because of the way trees grow . I ' ve read about those and immediately I had a question . What about ice core extractions from the other side of the world ? You might have to elaborate a bit more on what you mean by this . The temperature record from Greenland ice cores differs in detail from the temperature record from Antarctic ice cores . These are due to regional climate changes , such as the high frequency Dansgaardoeschger wiggles seen in the Greenland record . However , both records record the same global climate signals that are seen in the ocean sediment recordscontentuploads 201411 benthic 18 Ovostokco 2 . png of ice volume I should clarify that most of my work is done with d 18 O records so I know more about them . We have a very coherent picture of major changes to global climate over vast timescales . Don ' t get me wrong , I love working with data and trying to extrapolate past and future events . However , climate models similarly to financial models have a high degree of uncertainty or so called black swan events that cannot be predicted . What are the chances that one black swan event hasn ' t occurred e . g . meteor crash in the arctic region and as a result skewed the result ? I won ' t pretend to know much about financial models , but climate models are dynamical models of the physical climate system , they don ' t rely on trying to extrapolate future scenarios from observed climate data . The uncertainties in these models come only from uncertainties in our understanding of the physics of the system itself . Unsurprisingly , these mostly come from the most complicated parts of the system e . g . cloud formation and not from the dynamically simpler parts e . g . the greenhouse effect . Overall , the biggest uncertainty in model projections is that we don ' t know for certain how humans are going to behave will we emit more , less , about the same ? . The fact that models can accurately recreate past climate as known from paleoclimate reconstructions provides confidence in their reliability . If there were unknown black swan events in the paleoclimate records our models would not be able to hindcast as well as they do . The key point though is that climate models are not statistical extrapolations , they ' re just physics . I ' ve been very skeptical of this . Maybe because I don ' t understand the significance of it nor have properly researched it . However , how many trees are there that are older than 200 years and are accessible for scientists to take pieces out of them for the purpose of observing its rings ? Tree rings provide very accurate paleoclimate indicators because annual tree growth is constrained by well understood climate parameters . For instance , trees grow larger rings during wet years than dry ones . And trees accumulate a new growth ring without failure every year , so climate events recording in the rings can be very precisely dated . Some species of tree are extremely long lived , such as the bristlecone pine , where we have living examples that are nearly 5000 years old . This species is extra useful for climate scientists since it grows only at high altitudes and is very sensitive to temperature changes . I ' m not overly familiar with tree ring chronologies , but a quick literature search should provide a lot of good reading . How old are the oldest corals ? Again , I ' m not overly familiar with corals as paleoclimate indicators , but I know that we have sea level records from corals covering at least the last 4 glacial cycles 400 thousand years . However , coral records and ocean sediment records only very precisely agree over the last glacial termination 023 thousand years , so there is a lot of work to still be done there . One nice thing about corals is that they can be dated using UraniumThorium , which is the most precise radiogenic dating method available . I ' ve typed this up in a bit of a rush while I had free time this morning , but I ' m happy to answer any more questions you have or clarify anything that doesn ' t make sense .