A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Microsoft Windows 7 » Windows 7 Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel CPU prices going up?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31  
Old October 18th 18, 03:47 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:58:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-17 00:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to
direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing
directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't
understand what you are getting at.

[...]

It's about heat transported by ocean currents.

The Atlantic Conveyor moves warm water from the (sub-)tropics in the
northern/northeastern Atlantic. Since it floats on top of the colder
water there, that cold water subsides, and flows south (more or less)
well below the surface. The Conveyor is part of the worldwide
circulation/transport of heat by ocean currents. Here's a link that both
explains the system, and presents recent attempts to understand the
system better:

https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-atla...-rapid-project

Background as I have distilled it from many decades of reading science
journals and magazines:

As you know, water has a high specific heat, so even slight changes in
this system of warm and cold ocean currents can have large effects on
the circulation of air above the oceans, ie, the weather. See El Nino
and El Nina. If the Conveyor changes more than X (where X is at best a
rough estimate at this time), the climate of the northern Atlantic will
change. I.e., the climate from Greenland to Norway will change.

The ocean currents are obviously one of the factors driving the annual
weather cycles ("the climate"). The climate as a whole is a network of
feedback loops. Such networks are "chaotic systems". They cycle around a
sequence of state changes (eg, the seasonal changes of weather in your
locality) with some variability in each cycle. If some factor in the
system changes beyond some limit, the whole system tips into a new cycle
of state changes.

The unknowns are the triggering factors and their roles in the feedback
loops, and thus the rate of change into a new cycle of changes. The
"tipping point" could be on the order of a few seconds to many thousands
of years. The earliest climate models (1970s) suggested that climate
could change as quickly as about 100 years, depending on which factors
changed and by how much. Since these models did a good job of
"retrodicting" (matching known climate changes), these results created a
puzzle. That drove the creation of more powerful models, which have
merely refined these results: it is in fact possible for the climate to
change very rapidly. Since then, minor climate changes (such as the
Little Ice Age of the late Middle Ages) have shown that climate can
change very quickly indeed. Finer grained data from sediments and rocks
suggest that climate has occasionally tipped quite rapidly in the past,
probably on the order of a thousand years or so.

Statistics is not the best tool for analysing and understanding chaotic
systems like the weather and climate. That's why even eminent
statisticians are poor guides to understanding weather and climate. NB
that before the advent of supercomputers, weather prediction was
statistical, and notoriously unreliable beyond a short time frame, which
in Great Britain was approximately 1/2 a day (as I recall only too well
from my childhood there). Supercomputers enable the modelling of
multiple feedback loops one state-change at a time: the current state is
the input for calculating the next state. This has improved weather
prediction so that it's reliable for up to two or three days here, and
pretty good for up to a week or so. Even so, every so often the
prediction is badly off: some factor exceeds some limit, and instead of
a shower we get a thunderstorm.

Basically, any system of feedbacks between three or more entities is
chaotic. See the Three Body Problem for a very old example.

BTW, life itself is a driver of weather, and in the long run of climate.
Eg, ground cover affects the rate of water loss in the soils, and so
affects the hydrologic cycle that we call "rain."

Best,

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
Ads
  #32  
Old October 18th 18, 03:59 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:27 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 17/10/2018 11:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.


Not so fast, if you please ...

"Dunne et al. (2016) have presented the main outcomes of 10 years of
results obtained at the CLOUD experiment performed at CERN [...]
Although they observe that a fraction of cloud nuclei is effectively
produced by ionisation due to the interaction of cosmic rays with the
constituents of Earth atmosphere, this process is insufficient to
attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the
cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and
Earth magnetosphere."

"Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus
Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper
in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature
observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no
type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it, although they accept
that there is "considerable evidence" for solar influence on Earth's
pre-industrial climate and to some degree also for climate changes in
the first half of the 20th century.[27]"

And so on and so forth. The full article quotes evidence *both* for and
against the theory. It seems that if cosmic rays do influence cloud
cover, the effect is small, as evidenced by the low levels of
correlation quoted and the fact that the controversy has raged for over
a decade without any clear cut findings declaring a victor. By
contrast, we do have a definite and much more significant correlation
between levels of atmospheric CO2 and temperature, as already linked.


If you can cite secondary sources so then can I :-).

See
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cer...ming-basic.htm

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray
effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

"Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols
and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of
aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically
and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can
constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation
of neutral molecules. Under atmospheric conditions the growth from
ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth. We
performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on
the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes 20?nm and find
good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of
importance not just in Earth’s present day atmosphere for the growth
of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine
conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by
increased supernova activity."

.... a second step.

Don't be daft, this isn't about tax.


No, but he may, or may not, have been taking the ****.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #33  
Old October 18th 18, 04:25 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 10/15/2018 9:13 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
... 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm
they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up
to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up
with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end
processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented
processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound
.....


I think Intel is reconfiguring most of their production lines from 14nm
to the next fabrication process, and hence the shortage of 14nm products.

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #34  
Old October 18th 18, 04:29 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Mr. Man-wai Chang
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,941
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 10/16/2018 4:01 AM, Paul wrote:
...
This is a table from a recent Anandtech article announcing
the 9900K.
22nm 14/14+ 14++

Transistor fin pitch 60 42 42
Transistor gate pitch 90 70 84--- relaxed pitch
Interconnect pitch 80 52 52
Transistor fin height 34 42 42

Some nodes are done for power saving, some are
done for max_clock (performance). The above doesn't
suggest a lot of radical change.


Princopled Technology claimed that Intel i9-9900K was about 12% faster
than the top AMD Ryzen 2700X CPU.

Principled Technologies retested the Core i9-9900K: 12% faster but 66%
pricier than Ryzen 2700X
https://www.dvhardware.net/article69724.html

Those Intel i9-9900K vs Ryzen 2700X Benchmarks Look Much Worse Now
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev.../#2546fb7f108e

--
@~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!!
/ v \ Simplicity is Beauty!
/( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you!
^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3
不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援
(CSSA):
http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa
  #35  
Old October 18th 18, 06:51 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Paul[_32_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 11,873
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 10/16/2018 4:01 AM, Paul wrote:
...
This is a table from a recent Anandtech article announcing
the 9900K.
22nm 14/14+ 14++

Transistor fin pitch 60 42 42
Transistor gate pitch 90 70 84--- relaxed pitch
Interconnect pitch 80 52 52
Transistor fin height 34 42 42

Some nodes are done for power saving, some are
done for max_clock (performance). The above doesn't
suggest a lot of radical change.


Princopled Technology claimed that Intel i9-9900K was about 12% faster
than the top AMD Ryzen 2700X CPU.

Principled Technologies retested the Core i9-9900K: 12% faster but 66%
pricier than Ryzen 2700X
https://www.dvhardware.net/article69724.html

Those Intel i9-9900K vs Ryzen 2700X Benchmarks Look Much Worse Now
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev.../#2546fb7f108e


They'll still sell a few.

It's only $500.

The Ryzen 2700X is $300.

And it will do Turbo on two cores.
So you can run a SuperPI bench for a bar bet.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (8C 16T)
Core i9 9900K 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7

Paul
  #36  
Old October 18th 18, 01:57 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

This kind of stuff is garbage.


I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the
modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global
temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far. I
refer you again to:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/


The Berkely project was set up because of the general distrust of
publically available data. I think they have leaned most heavily on
the NOAA data but they have been throug whatever they use most
carefully. Many people regard them as having the best generally
available data.


The 'best generally available data' doesn't support *anything* that
you've claimed here, so why do you persist in posting OT misinformation
unsupported by any scientific provenance? It can only be because it's a
religion to you. Take your f*king OT denialist sh*te elsewhere.

I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends
not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a
link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the
media.


That depends on the media. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself
with more mainstream media. I listen regularly to BBC World Service
radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as
local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to
count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and
if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our
webpage!"


That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.


The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html

p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.

Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that ‘as
journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of the
evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing in
terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing the
public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over the
next couple of hundred years.’

Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, said that in his former job as head of
TV News, he had been lobbied by scientists ‘about what they thought
was a disproportionate number of people denying climate change getting
on our airwaves and being part of a balanced discussion – because they
believe, absolutely sincerely, that climate change is now scientific
fact.'

The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific
experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no
longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the
consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be
heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down
this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or
‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC.
Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as
minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must
give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more
offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes
of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet
is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public
awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and
accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only
sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding
both causation and solution. ..."

I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.


I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"

It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.


How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
provenance?

The discussions tend to be biased


Well I never, that's a surprise :-)

but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down


mis-

information


Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.

_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research
is properly peer reviewed.


AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.


Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against
so-called denialists or sceptics.


Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.

Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of
global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction
of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted
so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it
either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low,
suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and
insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant
compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it
ever existed.

Numeracy is not your strong point.


But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's
right, and you're wrong. The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched
onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El
Nino superimposed on the long term trend. Since then warming as
recommenced apace, as shown by the link above.


How are your statistics?


My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I
completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty.

Mine are my mathematical weak point.

Ah! Why am I not surprised?

Apart
from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me.


Then you should know better than to claim ...

Apart from that, I don't agree with you about the pause. The whole
situation has been confused by two El Ninos with a possible third
coming up.


Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that
I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations
such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case
which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie'
which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.

Evidence?

Published scientific literature.


An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence.


I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject.


It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't
any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it
was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the
late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a
piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and
often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal
that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real
understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had
a political or personal agenda.

Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.


I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.

The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.

How has it been distorted?


I agree, I should have written discounted.

It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on
the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem
poorly familiar with).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent
warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different
levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"


Hoo! That's a put down.


No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.

Follow the money.


That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big
oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers:


And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there any
evidence thay have an axe to grind?


In short, no!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change

"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of
those studies."

Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!


If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.


It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked
themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil.

Many are.

Who?


All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.


That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at
https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of
these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to
reduce their standard of living.


They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're
agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The
two are not necessarily linked.

There are few better.

At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I
agree.

You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper
statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one
conclusion. It cannot be fudged.


If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to
purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged?


That's a loaded question.


As are all your arguments.

I have never said that HadCRUT data has been
fudged, although the Climategate emails suggest very strongly that
they have been. What I have done is provide a link to an article which
suggests that the standard of HadCRUT's data is highly suspect.


Ah, I knew we'd get to Climategate sooner or later, after all, it's the
denialists' favourite weapon of mass distraction. Unfortunately for
you, there have been two independent investigations which cleared the
scientists involved of any intention to deceive. See appended.

I agree, statistics can be used to bamboozle the ignorant. However
this aspect started with my mention of a paper involving Ross
McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
McKitrick is one of the last people likely to be mislead by dubious
statistics.

He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the
Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his
ramblings.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html

It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in
contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says.


No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams.


Are you referring to the upwelling at the equator? Well, that does
happen as a result of the coriolos effect. You will see a small
diagram of this in fig 3 of
http://www.marbef.org/wiki/ocean_circulation

Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf

Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate
change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.

It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That
was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given
since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians
established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm
this.


You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land.
Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC.
Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to
them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a
euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to
acceptance of what the science is telling us ...


[order changed to restore clarity of argument]

That's politics again.
THat's still politics and nothing much to with science.
More politics.
Even more politics.
Yet more politics.
That's internal politics.


Following on from my last sentence above, I gave numerous examples (now
snipped in the interests of brevity) that demonstrated that politicians,
particularly US ones, are mostly anti-AGW and/or measures to combat it,
and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any acceptance of it,
but, judging from your replies which I've left above, you seemed to have
misread the purpose of their inclusion.

You are right, but even if I have got the dates wrong I am right that
the reason that they were looking for anthropogenic global warming is
that this is what they were set up to do.


I've already pointed out above that I'd heard of AGW as long ago as the
late 1960s/early 1970s, so what is perhaps surprising that it took until
1988, when the IPCC was set up, to set up a body to investigate it, and,
as you yourself have previously linked, they were set up to (my
emphasis) ...

ROLE

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a *comprehensive*,
*objective*, *open* and *transparent* basis the scientific, technical
and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific
basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and
options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral
with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with
scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the
application of particular policies.

3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is
an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both
peer review by experts and review by governments.

So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's
exactly what they do, but so what? Any idea that this is some global
conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians
were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject
to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple
scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked
conspiracy theory.

It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method.
I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot
better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how
the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
where there might not be any.

If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't
it been accepted as falsified?


Because it hasn't been. The modelling is not perfect and needs to be
improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth
continuing and refining.


How long can that argument be continued if the results don't come in?


Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can
denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions'
in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your
OT sh*te elsewhere.


ClimateGate
===========

ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included
in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring
widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more
recent times since the invention of thermometers.

AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the
relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the
scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have
not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these
locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a
decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature
measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been
established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes
tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the
sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak
such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such
names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning
the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data.

If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and
you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case
actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the
erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and
replace it with data that is known to be good, and ensure that you
explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done.

As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or
deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the
divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...termediate.htm

However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted
for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a
mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it
should have been:

"The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and
the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph
(its emphasis):

The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find
that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se,
or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should
have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly
described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]

However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall
picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the
literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report
in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC
reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the
subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature,
including CRU papers.”"

But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the
decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note
properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to
plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history.

As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline
in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was
the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the
northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has
yet explained.
  #37  
Old October 18th 18, 06:44 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 18/10/2018 03:59, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:27 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 17/10/2018 11:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.


Not so fast, if you please ...
[...]


If you can cite secondary sources so then can I :-).

See
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cer...ming-basic.htm

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray
effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"


Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy,
no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said
already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation
and therefore climate is small compared with other more important
factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory
results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley,
as already linked.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

[ selective quoting removed ]

... a second step.


No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of
warming, as the discussion section makes clear:

"it can be inferred from that a 20% variation in the ion production can
impact the growth rate in the range 1–4% (under the pristine
conditions). It is suggested that such changes in the growth rate can
explain the ~2% changes in clouds and aerosol change observed during
Forbush decreases7"

There is also another problem with the theory. After 9/11, all flights
were banned for some days afterwards, and some US scientists noticed
during this period how clear and sunny were the skies in the absence of
con-trails. This led them to investigate what is now often referred to
as 'Global Dimming', which is increased cloud cover and changes in its
nature, caused by the widespread presence of pollutants in the
atmosphere, reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space.
Global dimming is widely accepted to have caused cooling
contemporaneously with CO2 producing warming which has led us to
underestimate the effect of the latter ...

http://www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming

Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's
certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation
from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from
the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually
be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur!
  #38  
Old October 19th 18, 02:42 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

This kind of stuff is garbage.

I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the
modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global
temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far. I
refer you again to:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/


The Berkely project was set up because of the general distrust of
publically available data. I think they have leaned most heavily on
the NOAA data but they have been throug whatever they use most
carefully. Many people regard them as having the best generally
available data.


The 'best generally available data' doesn't support *anything* that
you've claimed here, so why do you persist in posting OT misinformation
unsupported by any scientific provenance? It can only be because it's a
religion to you. Take your f*king OT denialist sh*te elsewhere.

I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends
not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a
link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the
media.

That depends on the media. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself
with more mainstream media. I listen regularly to BBC World Service
radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as
local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to
count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and
if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our
webpage!"


That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.


The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html

p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.


You should also read
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe

The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.

--- snip ---

I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.


I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"

It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.


How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
provenance?


Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
stonethrowing articles.

The discussions tend to be biased


Well I never, that's a surprise :-)

but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down


mis-

information


Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical
faculties.

Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.

_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research
is properly peer reviewed.

AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.


Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against
so-called denialists or sceptics.


Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.


I'm not just writing for your benefit.

Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of
global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction
of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted
so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it
either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low,
suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and
insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant
compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Read the source
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it
ever existed.

Numeracy is not your strong point.

But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's
right, and you're wrong. The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched
onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El
Nino superimposed on the long term trend. Since then warming as
recommenced apace, as shown by the link above.


How are your statistics?


My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I
completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty.

Mine are my mathematical weak point.

Ah! Why am I not surprised?


I was referring to statistics.

My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.

Apart
from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me.


Then you should know better than to claim ...

Apart from that, I don't agree with you about the pause. The whole
situation has been confused by two El Ninos with a possible third
coming up.


Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that
I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations
such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case
which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie'
which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.


Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?

Evidence?

Published scientific literature.

An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence.


I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject.


It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't
any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it
was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the
late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a
piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and
often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal
that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real
understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had
a political or personal agenda.


You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of
when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age.

Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.


I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.

How do you explain the changes shown in
https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/

The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.

How has it been distorted?


I agree, I should have written discounted.

It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on
the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem
poorly familiar with).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent
warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different
levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"


Hoo! That's a put down.


No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.


Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

Follow the money.

That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big
oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers:


And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there any
evidence they have an axe to grind?


In short, no!


You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was
threatened?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change

"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of
those studies."

Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!


If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.


It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked
themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil.


Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of
$100,000,000?

Many are.

Who?

All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.


That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at
https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of
these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to
reduce their standard of living.


They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're
agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The
two are not necessarily linked.


You will make a fortune if you can prove that is possible.

There are few better.

At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I
agree.

You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper
statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one
conclusion. It cannot be fudged.

If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to
purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged?


That's a loaded question.


As are all your arguments.

I have never said that HadCRUT data has been
fudged, although the Climategate emails suggest very strongly that
they have been. What I have done is provide a link to an article which
suggests that the standard of HadCRUT's data is highly suspect.


Ah, I knew we'd get to Climategate sooner or later, after all, it's the
denialists' favourite weapon of mass distraction. Unfortunately for
you, there have been two independent investigations which cleared the
scientists involved of any intention to deceive. See appended.


Actually, there have been four enquiries, non of which were truly
independent. Nevertheless the documented deeds remain.

I agree, statistics can be used to bamboozle the ignorant. However
this aspect started with my mention of a paper involving Ross
McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
McKitrick is one of the last people likely to be mislead by dubious
statistics.

He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the
Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his
ramblings.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html

It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in
contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says.

No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams.


Are you referring to the upwelling at the equator? Well, that does
happen as a result of the coriolos effect. You will see a small
diagram of this in fig 3 of
http://www.marbef.org/wiki/ocean_circulation

Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf

Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate
change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.

It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That
was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given
since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians
established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm
this.

You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land.
Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC.
Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to
them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a
euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to
acceptance of what the science is telling us ...


[order changed to restore clarity of argument]

That's politics again.
THat's still politics and nothing much to with science.
More politics.
Even more politics.
Yet more politics.
That's internal politics.


Following on from my last sentence above, I gave numerous examples (now
snipped in the interests of brevity) that demonstrated that politicians,
particularly US ones, are mostly anti-AGW and/or measures to combat it,
and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any acceptance of it,
but, judging from your replies which I've left above, you seemed to have
misread the purpose of their inclusion.

You are right, but even if I have got the dates wrong I am right that
the reason that they were looking for anthropogenic global warming is
that this is what they were set up to do.


I've already pointed out above that I'd heard of AGW as long ago as the
late 1960s/early 1970s, so what is perhaps surprising that it took until
1988, when the IPCC was set up, to set up a body to investigate it, and,
as you yourself have previously linked, they were set up to (my
emphasis) ...

ROLE

2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a *comprehensive*,
*objective*, *open* and *transparent* basis the scientific, technical
and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific
basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and
options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral
with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with
scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the
application of particular policies.

3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is
an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both
peer review by experts and review by governments.

So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's
exactly what they do, but so what?


The whole thing smacks of research to support Lysenkoism. The
conclusion is preordained.

Any idea that this is some global
conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians
were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject
to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple
scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked
conspiracy theory.


Unfortunately there is no such thing as a scientific truth.

It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method.
I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot
better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how
the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
where there might not be any.

If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't
it been accepted as falsified?

Because it hasn't been. The modelling is not perfect and needs to be
improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth
continuing and refining.


How long can that argument be continued if the results don't come in?


Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can
denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions'
in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your
OT sh*te elsewhere.

The science is settled? Then why is so much money being spent in
funding an enormous amount of research into the mechanics of climate
change?

ClimateGate
===========

ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included
in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring
widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more
recent times since the invention of thermometers.

AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the
relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the
scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have
not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these
locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a
decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature
measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been
established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes
tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the
sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak
such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such
names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning
the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data.

If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and
you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case
actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the
erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and
replace it with data that is known to be good, ...


The data wasn't known to be good. It's just that it came from an era
when it could not be contradicted by modern technology. The tgruth is
the we don't really know how good (or bad) the data was.

... and ensure that you
explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done.

As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or
deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the
divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...termediate.htm

"The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and
IPCC reports" - ah yes, but only after it was discovered.

However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted
for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a
mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it
should have been:


And it corrupted the understanding of the data.

"The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and
the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph
(its emphasis):

The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find
that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se,
or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should
have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly
described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]


"should havebeen made plain".

However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall
picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the
literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report
in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC
reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the
subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature,
including CRU papers.”"

But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the
decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note
properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to
plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history.

As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline
in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was
the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the
northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has
yet explained.

--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #39  
Old October 19th 18, 03:42 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 18/10/2018 03:59, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:27 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 17/10/2018 11:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

VanguardLH wrote:

Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.

Not so fast, if you please ...
[...]


If you can cite secondary sources so then can I :-).

See
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cer...ming-basic.htm

"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray
effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"


Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy,
no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said
already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation
and therefore climate is small compared with other more important
factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory
results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley,
as already linked.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

[ selective quoting removed ]

... a second step.


No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of
warming, as the discussion section makes clear:


But Svensmark is making progress. See
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

"it can be inferred from that a 20% variation in the ion production can
impact the growth rate in the range 1–4% (under the pristine
conditions). It is suggested that such changes in the growth rate can
explain the ~2% changes in clouds and aerosol change observed during
Forbush decreases7"

There is also another problem with the theory. After 9/11, all flights
were banned for some days afterwards, and some US scientists noticed
during this period how clear and sunny were the skies in the absence of
con-trails. This led them to investigate what is now often referred to
as 'Global Dimming', which is increased cloud cover and changes in its
nature, caused by the widespread presence of pollutants in the
atmosphere, reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space.
Global dimming is widely accepted to have caused cooling
contemporaneously with CO2 producing warming which has led us to
underestimate the effect of the latter ...

http://www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming

Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's
certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation
from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from
the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually
be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur!


Well one thing is certain: that is that the behaviour of clouds is not
properly understood.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #40  
Old October 19th 18, 04:19 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:

That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.


The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html

p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.


You should also read
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe


I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have
already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it.
There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ...

The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.


Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.

I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.


I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"

It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.


How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
provenance?


Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
stonethrowing articles.


How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most
people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load
of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if
you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a
quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis.

but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down


mis-

information


Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical
faculties.


Time you started to acquire them.

Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.


I'm not just writing for your benefit.


You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're
in a hole, stop digging.

Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of
global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction
of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted
so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it
either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low,
suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and
insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant
compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Read the source
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery


Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some
relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade
through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small
compared to that of CO2.

How are your statistics?


My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I
completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty.

Mine are my mathematical weak point.

Ah! Why am I not surprised?


I was referring to statistics.


I know, and I wasn't surprised.

My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.


Outside of my mainstream studies, I also took a unit in each of
Astronomy, Geology And The Environment, Psychology, and Music. So what?

Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that
I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations
such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case
which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie'
which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.


I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead
try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to
be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as
in ...

Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?


.... the implication being that there might have been something wrong
about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note
that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists
that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're
just trying to sling mud.

But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't
remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the
available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first
findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason
since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science.

I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject.


It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't
any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it
was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the
late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a
piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and
often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal
that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real
understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had
a political or personal agenda.


You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of
when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age.


I note that you do not attempt to refute my point, but instead try to
move the goalposts, a typical denialist ploy, and I'm not falling for it.

Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.


I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.

How do you explain the changes shown in
https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/


It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA
& NOAA for an explanation and/or gave them a chance to comment before
publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only
interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than
getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic
fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it
possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked,
because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams
from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again,
this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane
Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr
Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a
living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted
the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which
completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers
it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only
offer guesses. Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements
both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it. You
yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they
not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of
inconsistency and fraud!

No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.


Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery


Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory
stands, according the figures already published it can only account for
a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to
explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud
cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's
radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on
its way out from Earth's surface!

In short, no!


You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was
threatened?


Only for the worse in our ability to predict the future, and, anyway,
how would that change global warming itself? Do you seriously believe
it will suddenly stop just because no-one is investigating it?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change

"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of
those studies."

Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!

If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.


It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked
themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil.


Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of
$100,000,000?


I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known
denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

"In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company
Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke
and to lobby against smoking bans.[2][3]:233–34[4] In the decade after
2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate
change denial.[5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus on global
warming,[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the
economy.[8]"

Note the link between tobacco denialism and climate change denialism,
which tells you all you need to know - the latter learnt from the
techniques of the former. As far as funding goes, and, again, note the
link with tobacco ...

"Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Institute, including
$736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[81][115] Greenpeace
reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[52] In
2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of
climate warming, including Heartland.[115][116][117][not in citation
given] Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, argued that ExxonMobil
was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its
public image.[115]

The Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco
companies Philip Morris,[3]:234 Altria and Reynolds American, and
pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli
Lilly.[113] State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former
supporters.[118] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of
donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct
link...between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry
and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive
smoking can damage people's health."[57] The Institute opposes
legislation on passive smoking as infringing on personal liberty and the
rights of owners of bars and other establishments.[119]"

So again I ask, why are acting as the unpaid employee of big oil? Or
perhaps you are not unpaid?

Many are.

Who?

All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.

That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at
https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of
these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to
reduce their standard of living.


They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're
agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The
two are not necessarily linked.


You will make a fortune if you can prove that is possible.


In other words, you have no real answer to that statement of fact.

Actually, there have been four enquiries, non of which were truly
independent. Nevertheless the documented deeds remain.


They were cleared of dishonestly and intentional wrong-doing, get used
to it.

So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's
exactly what they do, but so what?


The whole thing smacks of research to support Lysenkoism. The
conclusion is preordained.


LOL! Coming from a denialist, that is breathtakingly hypocritical, but,
although it tells us nothing useful about the IPCC, it does reveal much
about the way your mind works - because you think in terms
conspiracies, you also think that everyone else must be part of one!
The sad, simple truth is that neither you nor the world are that
interesting! Its history shows that most governments couldn't organise
the proverbial function in a brewery, let alone create and maintain over
many decades some fantastical global conspiracy against you or me or
anyone else. I hardly expected to mention Jane Austen's novels twice in
a thread about global warming denialism, but the fact that I can with
some justification merely shows how unchanging is human nature,
including its many flaws. Her novel 'Northanger Abbey' is partly about
a young woman who reads too many far-fetched and fantastic novels and,
when she is unexpectedly invited to stay at the rather spooky eponymous
residence, makes the mistake of thinking that its widowed proprietor
somehow did away with his wife - the truth about her death turns out
to be less interesting. Similarly today we are plied endlessly with
fantastically unrealistic films where one man succeeds in winning
through against some ubiquitous conspiracy involving everyone from the
president himself down to the man sweeping the street in front of the
hero's house, none of whom he can trust. Thankfully, the world is just
not like that, but sadly, global warming is really real and is really
happening, and so the IPCC were set up to investigate it, and are doing
so. This, however boring, is the simple truth.

Any idea that this is some global
conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians
were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject
to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple
scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked
conspiracy theory.


Unfortunately there is no such thing as a scientific truth.


Only to those like yourself so misguided as to deny it.

Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can
denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions'
in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your
OT sh*te elsewhere.

The science is settled? Then why is so much money being spent in
funding an enormous amount of research into the mechanics of climate
change?


To improve the modelling so that we can predict the effects better.


ClimateGate
===========

ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included
in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring
widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more
recent times since the invention of thermometers.

AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the
relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the
scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have
not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these
locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a
decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature
measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been
established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes
tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the
sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak
such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such
names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning
the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data.

If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and
you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case
actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the
erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and
replace it with data that is known to be good, ...


The data wasn't known to be good. It's just that it came from an era
when it could not be contradicted by modern technology. The tgruth is
the we don't really know how good (or bad) the data was.


It was known to be good, because we have had reasonably accurate
thermometers for hundreds of years, let alone since 1960, and there is
no need of 'modern technology' to measure temperature.

... and ensure that you
explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done.

As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or
deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the
divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...termediate.htm

"The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and
IPCC reports" - ah yes, but only after it was discovered.


Read again what I wrote in my introduction above, it was discovered in
*1995*, *over a decade before* ClimateGate in 2009! Wriggle as you may,
there is no way that you can make this part of your irrational global
conspiracy.

However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted
for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a
mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it
should have been:


And it corrupted the understanding of the data.


Yes, at least one of the investigations openly acknowledged that, but
that still doesn't make it a conspiracy, and the same investigation
stated that it could find no evidence for one.

"The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and
the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph
(its emphasis):

The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find
that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se,
or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should
have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly
described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]


"should havebeen made plain".


Exactly, but again that's a mistake or oversight, not a conspiracy.
Read again the following ...

However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall
picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the
literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report
in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC
reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the
subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature,
including CRU papers.”"

But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the
decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note
properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to
plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history.

As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline
in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was
the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the
northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has
yet explained.

  #41  
Old October 19th 18, 04:29 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 19/10/2018 03:42, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy,
no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said
already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation
and therefore climate is small compared with other more important
factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory
results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley,
as already linked.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

[ selective quoting removed ]

... a second step.


No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of
warming, as the discussion section makes clear:


But Svensmark is making progress. See
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery


But the effect will never be large enough to explain any more than a
small fraction of the current warming.

Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's
certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation
from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from
the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually
be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur!


Well one thing is certain: that is that the behaviour of clouds is not
properly understood.


Which makes it unscientific, as per Occam's razor, to assume that in
some complicated way their creation by cosmic rays would somehow explain
global warming, when we already have a far simpler and well understood
explanation that correlates well with observation, CO2.
  #42  
Old October 20th 18, 12:49 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Roger Blake[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 536
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 2018-10-19, Java Jive wrote:
Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.


Yes, it is tough dealing with these Warmists and their irrational,
pseudo-religious belief that *we* are causing the earth's climate to
change and that we will therefore take control of the climate to steer
it back to whatever we think it should be.

It's utter bilge of course, but it doesn't matter how much evidence to the
contrary you put in front of the climate hucksters and their rank-and-file
useful idiots. With so much power, control, taxes, funding, grants, etc.
on the line, the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of
its own.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.)

NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com
Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com
Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
  #43  
Old October 20th 18, 04:06 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:

That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.

The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html

p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.


You should also read
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe


I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have
already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it.
There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ...


Its very much open to interpretation as I wrote below.

The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.


Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.


Hmmmm.

I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.

I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29

"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"

It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.

How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
provenance?


Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
stonethrowing articles.


How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most
people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load
of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if
you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a
quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis.


You are confused. The so-called 'bull' that I read is at a technical
level which I would not expect to be presented by a popular
broadcaster. The so-call 'bull' that I read contains all kinds of
technical information which I variously reject, accept or put in
abeyance for further judgement. I pay little attention to opinion
pieces with no checkable theory or data.

but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down

mis-

information


Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical
faculties.


Time you started to acquire them.

Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.


I'm not just writing for your benefit.


You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're
in a hole, stop digging.

Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of
global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction
of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted
so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it
either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low,
suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and
insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant
compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.

Read the source
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery


Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some
relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade
through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small
compared to that of CO2.


There you are then. Who is it who has the closed mind now?

How are your statistics?

My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I
completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty.

Mine are my mathematical weak point.

Ah! Why am I not surprised?


I was referring to statistics.


I know, and I wasn't surprised.

My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.


Outside of my mainstream studies, I also took a unit in each of
Astronomy, Geology And The Environment, Psychology, and Music. So what?


I was merely explaining my mathematical background.

Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that
I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations
such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case
which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie'
which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.


I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead
try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to
be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as
in ...

Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?


... the implication being that there might have been something wrong
about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note
that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists
that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're
just trying to sling mud.


I was merely checking on your willingness to accept unverified data.
I've been following this field for long enough to have learned tat you
should accept no data without learning more about it.

But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't
remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the
available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first
findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason
since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science.


I'm glad you have done that. But I don't know that Berkely ever got
access to raw undigested data.

I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject.

It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't
any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it
was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the
late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a
piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and
often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal
that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real
understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had
a political or personal agenda.


You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of
when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age.


I note that you do not attempt to refute my point, but instead try to
move the goalposts, a typical denialist ploy, and I'm not falling for it.


That's not a point but a cloud which there is no point trying to
refute.

Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.

I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.

How do you explain the changes shown in
https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/


It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA
& NOAA for an explanation ...


What makes you think it hasn't been done?

... and/or gave them a chance to comment before
publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only
interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than
getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic
fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it
possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked,
because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams
from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again,
this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane
Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr
Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a
living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted
the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which
completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers
it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only
offer guesses.


I agree.

Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements
both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it.


You don't alter data as a result of modelling it! Surely not!

That's making the data fit the theory instead of vice versa. Mind you,
they have been accused of that.

You
yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they
not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of
inconsistency and fraud!


The basic data is what you have got and it is abhorrent that it should
be tinkered with. If the data is bad in one way or another you build
that into the error margins and uncertainty. But you leave the data
alone. Surely you were taught that in Stage 1 physics? I certainly
was.

No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.


Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery


Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory
stands, according the figures already published it can only account for
a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to
explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud
cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's
radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on
its way out from Earth's surface!


You may be interested in:
https://mailchi.mp/071cef970071/invi...3?e=99957e2afe
or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd

In short, no!


You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was
threatened?


Only for the worse in our ability to predict the future, and, anyway,
how would that change global warming itself? Do you seriously believe
it will suddenly stop just because no-one is investigating it?


But they are not investigating global warming. They are investigating
anthropogenic global warming almost to the exclusion of all else. It
is the exponents of the all else who are being described as deniers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change

"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of
those studies."

Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!

If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.

It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked
themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil.


Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of
$100,000,000?


I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known
denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute.


Answer: Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project

--- long tail snipped ---
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #44  
Old October 20th 18, 04:27 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:29:03 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 19/10/2018 03:42, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy,
no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said
already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation
and therefore climate is small compared with other more important
factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory
results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley,
as already linked.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2

[ selective quoting removed ]

... a second step.

No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of
warming, as the discussion section makes clear:


But Svensmark is making progress. See
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery


But the effect will never be large enough to explain any more than a
small fraction of the current warming.


That's your opinion, and you may be right, but Svensmark thinks he is
on the way to confirming his theory. He may be right. We will have to
wait and see.

Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's
certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation
from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from
the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually
be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur!


Well one thing is certain: that is that the behaviour of clouds is not
properly understood.


Which makes it unscientific, as per Occam's razor, to assume that in
some complicated way their creation by cosmic rays would somehow explain
global warming, when we already have a far simpler and well understood
explanation that correlates well with observation, CO2.


Precisely. No doubt that is not quite what is being done.

Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #45  
Old October 20th 18, 10:45 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

Roger Blake wrote:
On 2018-10-19, Java Jive wrote:
Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.


Yes, it is tough dealing with these Warmists and their irrational,
pseudo-religious belief that *we* are causing the earth's climate to
change and that we will therefore take control of the climate to steer
it back to whatever we think it should be.

It's utter bilge of course, but it doesn't matter how much evidence to the
contrary you put in front of the climate hucksters and their rank-and-file
useful idiots.


What's it like looking in the mirror? The evidence is hugely supportive of
human induced climate change. There is evidence to support other theories,
but it isn't anywhere near as complete nor been shown to influence the
climate as much as CO2.

If there's a side that refuses to accept the evidence it is not the climate
scientists.

With so much power, control, taxes, funding, grants, etc.
on the line,


The balance of power and money is massively in favour of the fossil fuel
industry who have a vested ibterest in sowing doubt wherever they can.

the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of
its own.


Sorry, but you're being played.



 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2024 PCbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.