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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Rate Thread | Display Modes |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote: 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. No, like anything else, it's open to misinterpretation, but there was *nothing* in it that helps you. 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. Yet you link to them as evidence 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? I haven't got a closed mind, it's you who can't seem to grasp the differing orders of magnitude of the effect of CO2 and cosmic ray cloud formation. Even supposing Svensmark's ideas become widely accepted, they're never going to account for more than a small fraction of the observed warming, thus, to pursue this point any further is just wasting everybody's time. 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 you still haven't responded to the obvious upward trend in the Berkeley graphs, and it's good correlation with CO2. 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. My recollection is that it's freely available on the web. 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? Because they didn't print the reply received, or else say that they had asked for an explanation, but hadn't received one, which a fair appraisal would have done as a matter of course. ... 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! I said 'auditing' the data, not 'altering' it, see below ... That's making the data fit the theory instead of vice versa. Mind you, they have been accused of that. No, they aren't working back from the result to give the readings, in this particular case that would be an extraordinarily complicated thing to do, and of course would be completely unprofessional - faking has happened sometimes in some areas of science, I can recall two examples in paleontology that were uncomfortably long-standing, but such faking usually comes to light sooner rather than later. You should recall that all work published in any reputable science journal has to be peer-reviewed, which, while always an imperfect process, nevertheless does a pretty good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. 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. You yourself linked to a critique of the data, should it not be audited to try and improve it? All data needs to be audited. You mention Physics experiments. When doing Physics experiments at uni, sometimes I'd get an outlier, and wherever possible going back and remeasuring was the best thing to do (and btw always showed that I'd made a mistake in the first measurement!), but if my mistake was discovered after I'd taken down the experiment and left the lab, then I'd have to leave it in with a note concerning my doubts for that reading. But historical data cannot be remeasured, so we have to make the most accurate use of it we can, and further it must be in such a state that it can be used for mathematical modelling, and that may mean correcting data (for example replacing an obviously Fahrenheit reading by its Celsius equivalent), deciding what should be done if an individual data point is missing (preferably, interpolate it from neighbouring points), even discarding an entire data series that is in so bad a state that it cannot be relied upon, etc. 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 No I won't, it's just another denialist front organisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...icy_Foundation "The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4] While their position is that the science of global warming or climate change is "not yet settled," the GWPF claims that its membership comes from a broad spectrum ranging from "the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism."[1] The GWPF as well as some of its prominent members have been characterized as promoting climate change denial.[5][6] In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" or "GWPF" was created as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts. .... Funding sources Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[15] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[16] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four different occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organization.[17] Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, commented: "These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by ... the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves ... The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders." [15] According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".[18] In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[19] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward commented that "Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."[19] Similarly, based on membership fees reported for the year ending 31 July 2012, it appears that GWPF had no more than 120 members at that time.[20] In March 2012, The Guardian revealed that it had uncovered emails in which Michael Hintze, founder of the hedge fund CQS and a major donor to the UK Conservative Party, disclosed having donated to GWPF; the previous October, Hintze had been at the center of a funding scandal that led to the resignation of then-Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox and the dismissal of Hintze's then-charity adviser, Oliver Hylton.[21] Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change attacked Lord Lawson's influential climate sceptic think-tank.[15]" 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. Again, see the relative effects of CO2 and cosmic rays. CO2 has an order of magnitude greater effect on global temperatures than can cosmic rays. We can do something about CO2 levels, it will a long and difficult road, economically, politically, and perhaps socially, but we can do something about them. We can't do anything about cosmic rays. So where should we spend the bulk of our resources? Certainly not on cosmic rays. 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 They have obviously realised at last that they need to clean up at least their image, if not yet their act. |
Ads |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 20/10/2018 04:27, Eric Stevens wrote:
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: 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, No, stop wasting everyone's time and go back and read the Wikipedia article I linked again. The opinion above is that of almost every other commentator on Svensmark's work (in what follows, please read the *entirety* of it before replying at the end if you wish to do so - I've deliberately cut out Svensmark's own replies, because they are basically repetitions of themselves, so in the interests of balance let me state before quoting the following that the main protagonists of Svensmark's work are Svensmark himself and his academic superior, and that there is some experimental support for his work, but not at a sufficient level to account for at best anything more than a comparatively small fraction of the currently observed warming): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark "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." "An early (2003) critique by physicist Peter Laut of Svensmark's theory reanalyzed Svensmark's data and suggested that it does not support a correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature changes; it also disputes some of the theoretical bases for the theory.[25]" "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," "In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[29] which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years." "Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data". Harrison studied the effect of cosmic rays in the UK.[31] He states: "Although the statistically significant non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out". Brian H. Brown (2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant (p0.05) short term 3% association between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) and low level clouds over 22 years with a 15-hour delay. Long-term changes in cloud cover ( 3 months) and GCR gave correlations of p=0.06.[32]" [Note the low correlation figures] "More recently, Laken et al. (2012)[33] found that new high quality satellite data show that the El Niño Southern Oscillation is responsible for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They also found that galactic cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance did not have any statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover." "Lockwood (2012)[34] conducted a thorough review of the scientific literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have been exaggerated." "Sloan and Wolfendale (2013)[35] demonstrated that while temperature models showed a small correlation every 22 years, less than 14 percent of global warming since the 1950s could be attributed to cosmic ray rate. The study concluded that the cosmic ray rate did not match the changes in temperature, indicating that it was not a causal relationship. Another 2013 study found, contrary to Svensmark's claims, "no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height."[36]" "In a detailed 2013 post on the scientists' blog RealClimate, Rasmus E. Benestad presented arguments for considering Svensmark's claims to be "wildly exaggerated".[38]" So, basically, it's Svensmark and his boss against most of the rest of the academic world. It may turn out that cosmic rays become accepted as causing some influence on climate, but it's very, very, very unlikely to be so strongly that we can ignore CO2, as the gist of your posts here have implied. 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. The above doesn't seem to make any sense in this context. Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science. You know, you really ought to get into the habit of researching properly *everything* you say in threads like these, it would save you making a **** of yourself so often: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor "In science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5]" |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: 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. Nor does 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. Yep. All those scientists who work to show that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming work for free. the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of its own. Sorry, but you're being played. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:22:35 +0100, Java Jive
wrote: On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote: 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. No, like anything else, it's open to misinterpretation, but there was *nothing* in it that helps you. 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. Yet you link to them as evidence I don't think so. There should always be checkable connection of some kind. Can you give me an example? 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? I haven't got a closed mind, it's you who can't seem to grasp the differing orders of magnitude of the effect of CO2 and cosmic ray cloud formation. I'm obviously behind you. I (and probably everyone else) have no real idea of the magnitude of the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Nor do they under any circumstances have a useful understanding of the effect of clouds on global climate. To further complicate matters there are a number of independent studies made from differing points of view which suggest that if CO2 does have a measurable effect the IPCC has overstated the effect by a factor of approximately 3. Even supposing Svensmark's ideas become widely accepted, they're never going to account for more than a small fraction of the observed warming, thus, to pursue this point any further is just wasting everybody's time. It's too soon to say 'never'. Nor would I say he is right but he does seem to be heading in the right direction. 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 you still haven't responded to the obvious upward trend in the Berkeley graphs, and it's good correlation with CO2. Say after me, 'correlation is not causation'. It could be temperature causing CO2. In that context you should have a look at the data from the Vostok ice cores. Its not clear in the large time scale graphs but when you look closer CO2 appears to lag temperature. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...eat/co2lag.gif In that context you should see the work of Professor Humlum, particularly the PDF which can be downloaded from http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1820892...emperature.pdf For some reason that URL give TinyURL hiccups. 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. My recollection is that it's freely available on the web. You may be right but my understanding is that all that is reasonably accessible is predigested. 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? Because they didn't print the reply received, or else say that they had asked for an explanation, but hadn't received one, which a fair appraisal would have done as a matter of course. A number of people have made similar criticisms but as far as I am aware there has been response from NASA or NOAA. ... 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! I said 'auditing' the data, not 'altering' it, see below ... Sorry, I'm used to double-speak. Auditing is the usual reason given for altering. That applies to HadCRUT4 of which see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ or http://tinyurl.com/ycnjezt8 I think I have referred that to you before. A more dispassionate criticism is given in https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/...-and-may-data/ or http://tinyurl.com/hok3b3l which asks "Can Both GISS and HadCRUT4 be Correct?" That's making the data fit the theory instead of vice versa. Mind you, they have been accused of that. No, they aren't working back from the result to give the readings, in this particular case that would be an extraordinarily complicated thing to do, and of course would be completely unprofessional - faking has happened sometimes in some areas of science, I can recall two examples in paleontology that were uncomfortably long-standing, but such faking usually comes to light sooner rather than later. You should recall that all work published in any reputable science journal has to be peer-reviewed, which, while always an imperfect process, nevertheless does a pretty good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff. 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. You yourself linked to a critique of the data, should it not be audited to try and improve it? All data needs to be audited. You mention Physics experiments. When doing Physics experiments at uni, sometimes I'd get an outlier, and wherever possible going back and remeasuring was the best thing to do (and btw always showed that I'd made a mistake in the first measurement!), but if my mistake was discovered after I'd taken down the experiment and left the lab, then I'd have to leave it in with a note concerning my doubts for that reading. But historical data cannot be remeasured, so we have to make the most accurate use of it we can, and further it must be in such a state that it can be used for mathematical modelling, and that may mean correcting data (for example replacing an obviously Fahrenheit reading by its Celsius equivalent), deciding what should be done if an individual data point is missing (preferably, interpolate it from neighbouring points), even discarding an entire data series that is in so bad a state that it cannot be relied upon, etc. Agreed and understood. 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 No I won't, it's just another denialist front organisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...icy_Foundation "The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4] While their position is that the science of global warming or climate change is "not yet settled," the GWPF claims that its membership comes from a broad spectrum ranging from "the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism."[1] The GWPF as well as some of its prominent members have been characterized as promoting climate change denial.[5][6] In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" or "GWPF" was created as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts. You seem to have habit of shooting the messenger before reading the message. Its the message which matters. Funding sources Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[15] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[16] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four different occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organization.[17] Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, commented: "These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by ... the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves ... The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders." [15] According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".[18] In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[19] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward commented that "Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."[19] Similarly, based on membership fees reported for the year ending 31 July 2012, it appears that GWPF had no more than 120 members at that time.[20] In March 2012, The Guardian revealed that it had uncovered emails in which Michael Hintze, founder of the hedge fund CQS and a major donor to the UK Conservative Party, disclosed having donated to GWPF; the previous October, Hintze had been at the center of a funding scandal that led to the resignation of then-Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox and the dismissal of Hintze's then-charity adviser, Oliver Hylton.[21] Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change attacked Lord Lawson's influential climate sceptic think-tank.[15]" 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. An accurate description. Again, see the relative effects of CO2 and cosmic rays. CO2 has an order of magnitude greater effect on global temperatures than can cosmic rays. We can do something about CO2 levels, it will a long and difficult road, economically, politically, and perhaps socially, but we can do something about them. We can't do anything about cosmic rays. So where should we spend the bulk of our resources? Certainly not on cosmic rays. See my comment above about the magnitude of the effect of CO2. 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 They have obviously realised at last that they need to clean up at least their image, if not yet their act. That was my first conclusion also. However they may be hoping to get Stanford to carry out climate research in areas which will not attract conventional funding. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:14:23 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-19 23:06, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] I was merely explaining my mathematical background. [...] Does that include chaos theory and fractals? Nope. I was too early for that but I have read some of the introductory materials by Lorenz and Poincarre. But that was a long time ago. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 13:19:42 +0100, Java Jive
wrote: On 20/10/2018 04:27, Eric Stevens wrote: 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: 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, No, stop wasting everyone's time and go back and read the Wikipedia article I linked again. Good God! Wikipedia! Is that where you get your science from? Wikipedia is known to be biased on climate matters and battles royal have raged on its pages trying to push the text in one direction or another. Climate is not the only subject addressed in Wikipedia where this is known to happen. The opinion above is that of almost every other commentator on Svensmark's work (in what follows, please read the *entirety* of it before replying at the end if you wish to do so - I've deliberately cut out Svensmark's own replies, because they are basically repetitions of themselves, so in the interests of balance let me state before quoting the following that the main protagonists of Svensmark's work are Svensmark himself and his academic superior, and that there is some experimental support for his work, but not at a sufficient level to account for at best anything more than a comparatively small fraction of the currently observed warming): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark "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." "An early (2003) critique by physicist Peter Laut of Svensmark's theory reanalyzed Svensmark's data and suggested that it does not support a correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature changes; it also disputes some of the theoretical bases for the theory.[25]" A lot has happened since 2003 including several experiments carried out at CERN. "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," "In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[29] which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years." "Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data". Harrison studied the effect of cosmic rays in the UK.[31] He states: "Although the statistically significant non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out". Brian H. Brown (2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant (p0.05) short term 3% association between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) and low level clouds over 22 years with a 15-hour delay. Long-term changes in cloud cover ( 3 months) and GCR gave correlations of p=0.06.[32]" [Note the low correlation figures] "More recently, Laken et al. (2012)[33] found that new high quality satellite data show that the El Niño Southern Oscillation is responsible for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They also found that galactic cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance did not have any statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover." Willis Esenbach would suggest that they did not ask the right questions of the data. "Lockwood (2012)[34] conducted a thorough review of the scientific literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have been exaggerated." "Sloan and Wolfendale (2013)[35] demonstrated that while temperature models showed a small correlation every 22 years, less than 14 percent of global warming since the 1950s could be attributed to cosmic ray rate. The study concluded that the cosmic ray rate did not match the changes in temperature, indicating that it was not a causal relationship. Another 2013 study found, contrary to Svensmark's claims, "no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height."[36]" "In a detailed 2013 post on the scientists' blog RealClimate, Rasmus E. Benestad presented arguments for considering Svensmark's claims to be "wildly exaggerated".[38]" So, basically, it's Svensmark and his boss against most of the rest of the academic world. It may turn out that cosmic rays become accepted as causing some influence on climate, but it's very, very, very unlikely to be so strongly that we can ignore CO2, as the gist of your posts here have implied. I have not suggested ignoring CO2. Indeed I would like to see it occupying its rightful place in the climate pantheon. 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. The above doesn't seem to make any sense in this context. Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science. You know, you really ought to get into the habit of researching properly *everything* you say in threads like these, it would save you making a **** of yourself so often: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor "In science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5]" Aah. That's a philosopher writing. The author is concerned about their ability to build a rigorous philosophical structure. But in scientific matters you exclude complex solutions at your peril. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:15:04 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-19 23:27, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science. [...] Why not? Because the simplest answer is not necessarily the right one. e.g. Occams razor would favour Newton over Einstein. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 23:37:03 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-20 22:41, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:14:23 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-19 23:06, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] I was merely explaining my mathematical background. [...] Does that include chaos theory and fractals? Nope. I was too early for that but I have read some of the introductory materials by Lorenz and Poincarre. But that was a long time ago. Ah, that explains why you believe that statistical analysis is enough to refute claims of anthropogenic global warming. No! Nonsense! I don't believe that at all. Quite the reverse in fact. From what I have read I suspect some quite shonky statistical analysis has been used to support claims of anthropogenic global warming. I don't know enough to properly reach that conclusion myself the poor quality of statistics in much work related to climate study has been heavily criticised by people who are qualified to do so. e.g. McKittrick, and Wegman. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report I not only read "introductory materials", I constructed and ran models of simple chaotic systems as described in some of the texts. I did so because hands-on is the only way to understand what the math means [1]. (Sidebar: one of the models produced a lovely parabola, randomly placed spot by randomly placed spot, as the system cycled through its states.the parabola began to emerge at around 500 iterations, but was still visibly gappy after 5,000.) I got that far on a computer many years, more as entertainment than anything else. Take-away 1: Any system of three or more entities that mutually influence each other is a chaotic system. Take-away 2: One can compute any given state of such a system directly from its initial state at T(0). You have to calculate its state at T(1), T(2), T(3),... T(N-2), T(N-1). (That is, the system cannot be described by a set of equations such that its state at T(N) is function of N.) Take-away 3: The systems that matter most to us human beings are mostly chaotic. The weather. The climate. The economy. The ecosystems that supply us with food. The social systems that enable us to live decent lives. Our health. Traffic on motorways. And so on. Yep. Which causes some people to ask why it is thought possible to model climate. Footnote [1]: A set of numbers is meaningless without a context. Suppose I tell you that the median score on a school test was 76 correct out of one hundred. Is that good or bad or somewhere in between? How would you decide? Since you claim you are able "check the raw data", you should be able to answer those questions with no trouble at all. THats meaningless on its own. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 23:53:25 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-20 22:55, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:15:04 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-19 23:27, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science. [...] Why not? Because the simplest answer is not necessarily the right one. e.g. Occams razor would favour Newton over Einstein. Not at all. Newton is still valid, within a smaller scope of reality, is all. That is, the difference between Einstein's and Newton's equations is too small to measure with Newtonian instruments at the scale at which Newton worked. You know, the scale of the high school physics lab. Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's when V/c is "vanishingly small", ie, below the ability to detect it and its effects. BTW, when Copernicus proposed his helio-centric model of apparent heavenly motions, the margin of observational error was too large to differentiate between his model and Ptolemy's. But Copernicus's model was and is simpler. Occam's razor in action. You can't interpret any data without some philosophical and theoretical framework, plus some practical context. Suppose I tell you that some material has a Rockwell hardness of 30N and another has a hardness of 30T. What kind of sense can you make of those two data? I've never had cause to use either of those two scales, in fact I have always tried to avoid Rockwell. I'm happy with Brinell for ordinary steels but prefer Vickers for harder materials. But that data you quoted tells me that your two materials are a) soft and b) very soft. What is your point? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 21/10/2018 02:48, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Roger Blake wrote: 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 is the denialists who cannot base their beliefs on science, as may shown simply by the fact that throughout the entirety of this thread and elsewhere neither Eric nor any other denialist has managed to produce any provenance for their beliefs that is able to pass even the most cursory rational investigation. 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. Whereas denialists such as yourself just make these sweeping claims without any scientific provenance whatsoever, and are then abusive, when, unsurprisingly, no-one believes you! 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. Nor does CO2. :-) Smiley or not, that has been proven to be a lie in so many different ways, most convincingly of all by the original 1850s experiments and the Berkeley results, that the fact that you are now obviously lying proves that you've lost the rational argument. 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. Yep. All those scientists who work to show that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming work for free. Yes they *do*, as can be proven by the sort of minimal investigation which you could and should have done yourself throughout this entire thread, if only to save you making a **** of yourself, and in this particular case especially as someone else has *already* pointed this out previously in this same thread ... http://ipcc.ch/index.htm (my emphasis) "Assessments of climate change by the IPCC, drawing on the work of hundreds of scientists from all over the world, enable policymakers at all levels of government to take sound, evidence-based decisions. They represent extraordinary value as the authors volunteer their time and expertise. The running costs of the Secretariat, including the organization of meetings and travel costs of delegates from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, are covered through the IPCC Trust Fund." So the academics who are members of the IPCC *do* give their time for free, in the sense they are not paid up IPCC employees, rather their time is *donated* by their real employers, which are academic or scientific institutions such as universities, government departments, etc. the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of its own. Sorry, but you're being played. Yes, it's a wonder that they can't feel their strings being pulled. |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 21/10/2018 03:38, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:22:35 +0100, Java Jive wrote: (And, btw, ffs learn how to trim your replies) On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote: I pay little attention to opinion pieces with no checkable theory or data. Yet you link to them as evidence I don't think so. There should always be checkable connection of some kind. Can you give me an example? I can remember at least two without further thought (munged so as not to increase their search engine rankings any further) ... On 16/10/2018 09:54, Eric Stevens wrote: I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen but you will find information about it at h t t p s : / / w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m / 2 0 1 8 / 1 0 / 1 4 / c l i m a t e - r e s e a r c h - i n - t h e - i p c c - w o n d e r l a n d - w h a t - a r e - w e - r e a l l y - m e a s u r i n g - a n d - w h y - a r e - w e - w a s t i n g - a l l - t h a t - m o n e y / Generally, w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m is a well-known denialist blog site of little if any scientific credibility. Particularly, there are problems with the article itself. To remind you, this is what I said about it when first you linked to it ... "An interesting article, but unfortunately for you it doesn't support your claim that "Human induced climate change is very much open to debate ... The article is actually about the problems of modelling climate change ... There are other problems with the article as well - much of it is based on old data, the sources quoted are dated 2001, 2002, 2006, and only the most recent being 2014, but then has been updated to mention recent hurricanes in its final paragraphs to present a (given where it was published, it is reasonable to assume) *deliberately misleading* veneer of contemporaneity at variance with the dates quoted above." To which I would now add, that there are only two links of provenance that I can see, a couple of others to definitions of technical terms, but the bulk of the article is all his own assertions stated as though they were peer-reviewed fact. On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote: You may be interested in: h t t p s : / / m a i l c h i . m p / 0 7 1 c e f 9 7 0 0 7 1 / i n v i t a t i o n - c l i m a t e - a n d - t h e - s o l a r - m a g n e t i c - f i e l d - 1 7 2 8 3 3 ? e = 9 9 9 5 7 e 2 a f e Again, G l o b a l W a r m i n g P o l i c y F o u n d a t i o n is a well-known denialist website with no scientific standing whatsoever. I haven't got a closed mind, it's you who can't seem to grasp the differing orders of magnitude of the effect of CO2 and cosmic ray cloud formation. I'm obviously behind you. I (and probably everyone else) have no real idea of the magnitude of the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation. Do not tar everyone else with your own ignorance and/or stupidity. There were tentative figures given in the Wikipedia article and in the CLOUD results. Nor do they under any circumstances have a useful understanding of the effect of clouds on global climate. To further complicate matters there are a number of independent studies made from differing points of view which suggest that if CO2 does have a measurable effect the IPCC has overstated the effect by a factor of approximately 3. Again opinion stated as thought it were fact, but without any links of provenance to establish it as fact. Until you produce scientifically worthwhile evidence everyone else is justly entitled to believe this is a lie, especially given your record here of wasting everyone's time by failing to check for yourself even the most basic information. Even supposing Svensmark's ideas become widely accepted, they're never going to account for more than a small fraction of the observed warming, thus, to pursue this point any further is just wasting everybody's time. It's too soon to say 'never'. Nor would I say he is right but he does seem to be heading in the right direction. Again, tentative figures have already been given in the literature that we have covered. But you still haven't responded to the obvious upward trend in the Berkeley graphs, and it's good correlation with CO2. Say after me, 'correlation is not causation'. It could be temperature causing CO2. Again, you fail to grasp the most *basic* facts about planetary science which five minutes with a good search engine and five more reading a reputable article thus found would tell you. Say after me, "it's a positive feedback mechanism, commonly known as a vicious circle!" - increasing global temperature increases atmospheric CO2, increases atmospheric CO2 increases global temperatu CO2 = Global temperature In that context you should have a look at the data from the Vostok ice cores. Its not clear in the large time scale graphs but when you look closer CO2 appears to lag temperature. See http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...eat/co2lag.gif As it happens, I have already looked at the data from the Vostok ice cores in some detail. Seeing as you are using the usual denialist ploy of linking to an image out of context, let me tell you that the cores go back to almost 423,000 BP and cover the last *four* ice-ages, and there is *nothing* there to help you, *nothing* that contradicts that increasing CO2 increases temperature. Before the evolutions of humans emitting CO2, there is overwhelming evidence that climate followed Milankovitch cycles, which are temperature led, hence temperature leading CO2 in the ice cores. However, by our activities releasing more CO2 into the current Milankovitch cycle, we are exacerbating the vicious circle by additionally pushing on it, 'forcing' it in climate-science speak, from the CO2 side. In that context you should see the work of Professor Humlum, particularly the PDF which can be downloaded from http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1820892...emperature.pdf For some reason that URL give TinyURL hiccups. (Read the *whole* of this before replying) My reading of just the abstract and the first few sections rang alarm bells in my mind, as it should have done yours, because of the very limited sources of CO2 data used: "Only sites where samples are predominantly of well-mixed marine boundary layer (MBL) air representative of a large volume of the atmosphere are considered for the global CO2 data series (IPCC AR4, 2007). These key sites are typically at remote marine sea level locations with prevailing onshore winds, to minimize the effects of inland vegetation and industries. Measurements from sites at higher altitude and from sites close to anthropogenic and natural sources and sinks are excluded from the global CO2 estimate." The absorption of radiation by CO2 is most significant in its effects at higher levels in the atmosphere, at lower levels thermal conduction and transport, and absorption by water vapour, are more significant ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect "The atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation (with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere, largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an important greenhouse gas .... Within the region where radiative effects are important, the description given by the idealized greenhouse model becomes realistic. Earth's surface, warmed to a temperature around 255 K, radiates long-wavelength, infrared heat in the range of 4–100 μm.[16] At these wavelengths, greenhouse gases that were largely transparent to incoming solar radiation are more absorbent.[16] Each layer of atmosphere with greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from lower layers. It reradiates in all directions, both upwards and downwards; in equilibrium (by definition) the same amount as it has absorbed. This results in more warmth below. Increasing the concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and reradiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the surface below.[14] Greenhouse gases—including most diatomic gases with two different atoms (such as carbon monoxide, CO) and all gases with three or more atoms are able to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Though more than 99% of the dry atmosphere is IR transparent (because the main constituents — N2, O2, and Ar — are not able to directly absorb or emit infrared radiation), intermolecular collisions cause the energy absorbed and emitted by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other, non-IR-active, gases." Given this, how can you possibly measure the effect of CO2 on temperature by measuring its concentration only at the planet's surface? Consequently, I performed some due diligence, which yet again you should have performed for yourself ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ole_Humlum "Humlum is a member of the Norwegian organization Climate Realists, which questions aspects of the scientific assessment of climate change that have been expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). He is active in Norwegian and Danish debate about science on the issue, arguing that current climate change is mainly a natural phenomenon.[1] Together with Jan-Erik Solheim and Kjel Stordahl, he published the article "Identifying natural contributions to late Holocene climate change" in Global and Planetary Change in 2011. The article argues that changes in the sun's and moon's influence on the earth may explain most of the historical and current climate change. The theory in the article was opposed by several scientists.[5] He predicted in 2013 that the climate would most likely become colder in the coming 10–15 years.[6]" Note that this hasn't happened. "In April 2018 he joined the Academic Advisory Council of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a London think tank that questions aspects of the greenhouse warming theory.[7]" So, affiliated to a well-known denialist organisation. https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...21818113000908 "Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim Mark Richardson Highlights • Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not supported by the data • Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions. • This conclusion violates conservation of mass. • Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is indistinguishable from zero. • The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire rise. Abstract Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass. Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1." My recollection is that it's freely available on the web. You may be right but my understanding is that all that is reasonably accessible is predigested. https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...es_format.html Because they didn't print the reply received, or else say that they had asked for an explanation, but hadn't received one, which a fair appraisal would have done as a matter of course. A number of people have made similar criticisms but as far as I am aware there has been response from NASA or NOAA. Again, you adopt the classic denialist ploy by stating assertions as though they are facts but without giving *evidence* - if it is true that "a number of people have made similar criticisms", provide some provenance in the form of links, and, more generally, stop wasting everyone's f*king time by failing to perform even the most rudimentary due diligence on anything you say. You don't alter data as a result of modelling it! Surely not! I said 'auditing' the data, not 'altering' it, see below ... Sorry, I'm used to double-speak. That confirms out of your own mouth to everyone here what the rest of us already knew, that you are being irrational and looking for conspiracies where there are none. Auditing is the usual reason given for altering. That applies to HadCRUT4 of which see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ or http://tinyurl.com/ycnjezt8 We've discussed this article before, and you have been unable to respond to the several criticisms of it. I think I have referred that to you before. A more dispassionate criticism is given in https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/...-and-may-data/ or http://tinyurl.com/hok3b3l which asks "Can Both GISS and HadCRUT4 be Correct?" The same denialist misinformation ... "Werner Brozek, Excerpted from Professor Robert Brown from Duke University" The former is a known denialist (who seems to have died last Tuesday; at least I presume it's him, there can't be many with that name). The latter is indeed Prof of Physics at Duke ... https://phy.duke.edu/people/robert-brown https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/ The above article is based on emails to the site from Prof Brown, but to be sure we're getting it straight from the horse's mouth, let's examine those directly. Search for rgbatduke in the following: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/...omment-2068737 rgbatduke, October 2, 2015 at 10:36 am Although there are links to other posts in which he makes it clear that he is a sceptic, I have no problems with this actual post down to and until ... "Two examples ... One is clearly the named structures themselves in the climate ... The second is me." Let's deal with the second first, at it is obviously totally specious to compare even metaphorically a biological entity, with a mind and a will, to a determinist, albeit chaotic and complex, system. He even says "The problem is that this whole idea is just silly!"; it is, so why introduce such a specious comparison, at all? It is clear that he introduces it purely as a metaphor to denigrate climate modelling, there is no further reason than that - to compare apples and pears like this is wholly unscientific. As far as the first is concerned, it is indeed a major problematic area for climate models. As he himself said previously when bemoaning the lack of serious math on climate: "the math is insanely difficult even when it is limited to toy systems — simple iterated maps, simple ODE* or PDE* systems with simple boundary conditions" Yes, that is all true, and everyone involved is aware of deficiencies in the data and the modelling, but, because potentially this could be one of the most serious issues facing humanity today, it is merely in our own best interests of self-preservation to do the best we can with the tools available at any given time, and if he, as his emails seem to imply, has the mathematical capability to do better than so far has been done, why not contribute his expertise to the effort rather than unhelpfully stand on the sidelines picking holes in other people's work on a well-known denialist site which may purport merely to devalue climate science in particular, but inherently thereby devalues science in general, including his own professional work! He even says at the end of the second email discussed below, "This result just makes me itch to get my hands on the data sets and code involved.", but, as much of it seems to be freely available online, just how hard has he tried?! Overall, wrt both points his behaviour comes across as being unacceptably unprofessional, and IMV not what any professional scientist, least of all a Prof, should be doing. * As I presume, Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations. rgbatduke, November 10, 2015 at 1:19 pm The other article that you linked is mostly taken from this email. It is very long and complex, and therefore there are risks in trying to summarise it, but here goes ... The different climate data series are published as 'anomalistic', in other words, not as absolute data but as deviations from what is expected, but immediately that introduces a problem of how to *define* what is expected, including what reference period of time you use, starting and finishing at what stage in natural decadal cycles such as El Nino/La Nina, etc. Prof Brown plays with changing some of the parameters to show that the different data series can be split into different periods of time over which they can be made to agree for any one of these periods, but only by choosing *different* parameters for each period, if any *single* parameter is used to match the data over any one given time period, then data for some other time period fits much less well, even outside the error figures given for any individual data set. Thus, if we are to take the error figures at face value, each data set 'proves' that one or more others are 'wrong' over at least some period of the entire data range, and vice versa. As his main aim seems to be to cast doubt, rather than say anything of lasting use or value, he does not make clear how he thinks the data as it stands is best used, so it's left to others to guess. We can try to do this, but of course we are not climate scientists, nevertheless ... http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had.../to:2015/trend Judging from his own link above, the period of best fit is the satellite era, as one might expect as it's the era for which we have the best data, so the problem becomes that if we alter the start parameter of the above backwards and remove the series that don't go that far back, what happens to historical data? http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had.../to:2005/trend Two of the three series fit within the stated errors, and third still agrees quite closely, though outside stated errors, and all three show an unambiguous, anomalous rise since 1850, hardly disastrous for a model of AGW! Granted this is simplistic, but I have even less time than climate scientists or Prof Brown, and noone's paying me to refute him, still less your endless denialist twaddle. Agreed and understood. So why not snip the rest of it then, as I have done? You may be interested in: https://mailchi.mp/071cef970071/invi...3?e=99957e2afe or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd No I won't, it's just another denialist front organisation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...icy_Foundation "The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic global warming.[3][4] While their position is that the science of global warming or climate change is "not yet settled," the GWPF claims that its membership comes from a broad spectrum ranging from "the IPCC position through agnosticism to outright scepticism."[1] The GWPF as well as some of its prominent members have been characterized as promoting climate change denial.[5][6] In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global Warming Policy Forum" or "GWPF" was created as a wholly owned subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of anthropogenic global warming and its impacts. You seem to have habit of shooting the messenger before reading the message. Its the message which matters. Not if the messenger is a double agent. Funding sources Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required to report its sources of funding,[15] and Peiser has declined to reveal its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the companies themselves."[16] The foundation has rejected freedom of information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least four different occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request, Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was originally provided to establish the organization.[17] Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London School of Economics, commented: "These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted by ... the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except themselves ... The GWPF was the most strident critic during the 'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic information about its own secretive operations, including the identity of its funders." [15] According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".[18] In accounts filed at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of July 2010, came from membership contributions.[19] In response to the accounts, Bob Ward commented that "Its income suggests that it only has about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the interests of a very small number of politically motivated campaigners."[19] Similarly, based on membership fees reported for the year ending 31 July 2012, it appears that GWPF had no more than 120 members at that time.[20] In March 2012, The Guardian revealed that it had uncovered emails in which Michael Hintze, founder of the hedge fund CQS and a major donor to the UK Conservative Party, disclosed having donated to GWPF; the previous October, Hintze had been at the center of a funding scandal that led to the resignation of then-Secretary of State for Defence Liam Fox and the dismissal of Hintze's then-charity adviser, Oliver Hylton.[21] Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change attacked Lord Lawson's influential climate sceptic think-tank.[15]" 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. An accurate description. Because ... Again, see the relative effects of CO2 and cosmic rays. CO2 has an order of magnitude greater effect on global temperatures than can cosmic rays. We can do something about CO2 levels, it will a long and difficult road, economically, politically, and perhaps socially, but we can do something about them. We can't do anything about cosmic rays. So where should we spend the bulk of our resources? Certainly not on cosmic rays. See my comment above about the magnitude of the effect of CO2. I've shown above that your comment showed a lamentable lack of understanding of how the planet actually works. Answer: Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project They have obviously realised at last that they need to clean up at least their image, if not yet their act. That was my first conclusion also. However they may be hoping to get Stanford to carry out climate research in areas which will not attract conventional funding. Perhaps, only time will tell. |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:33:56 +0100, Java Jive
wrote: On 21/10/2018 02:48, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Roger Blake wrote: 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 is the denialists who cannot base their beliefs on science, as may shown simply by the fact that throughout the entirety of this thread and elsewhere neither Eric nor any other denialist has managed to produce any provenance for their beliefs that is able to pass even the most cursory rational investigation. I'm sure what you mean by 'provenance' but I suspect it means approval by a person or persons on the approved list. That's a broad and woolly accusation typical of a scholastic argument and of not much relevance when discussing science. As examples of why I do not unreservedly accept the IPCC CO2 causes global warming argument In this thread I have cited links to various sources, all of which contain sufficient information to enable them to be tracked back to the original data. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr You will find more info at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/ Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? 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. Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Improved sensors in the year 2000 make no difference to data gathered in 1940. Various documents have been published on the quality of sensor installations with the first significant publication being https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...t_spring09.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/p2rz7kf Here is a later one https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...rature-trends/ or http://tinyurl.com/y9bb32tq 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. Whereas denialists such as yourself just make these sweeping claims without any scientific provenance whatsoever, and are then abusive, when, unsurprisingly, no-one believes you! Here you show why you and peple like me will never agree. First you are again relying on 'provenance' rather than the actual facts of the situation. Second you say "no-one believes you!" when the true test is whether or not anyone confirms that the facts are as described and are correct. By falling back on belief you are turning this into a quasi-religious argument where following the creed is of fundamental importance. 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. Nor does CO2. :-) Smiley or not, that has been proven to be a lie in so many different ways, most convincingly of all by the original 1850s experiments and the Berkeley results, that the fact that you are now obviously lying proves that you've lost the rational argument. I'm not lying, whether obviously or not. First the CO2 causes global warming relies on a feedback mechanism employing water vapour. There are strong grounds for concluding that the originators of this theory selected the wrong mathematical model for the feed back and also have made an error in its application. It is estimated that the error from this cause is that the heating effect is exagerated by a factor of between 2 and 3. That there is an error of this magnitude appears to have been confirmed by first-principle analysis of the data. Second the physical model of the feed back requires that a hotspot should be formed in the troposphere over the tropics. No such hot spot has been observed. I suppose that both of these will be news to you, but that,s what happens you fail to keep an eye on what is happening in the field. 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. Yep. All those scientists who work to show that anthropogenic CO2 causes global warming work for free. Yes they *do*, as can be proven by the sort of minimal investigation which you could and should have done yourself throughout this entire thread, if only to save you making a **** of yourself, and in this particular case especially as someone else has *already* pointed this out previously in this same thread ... http://ipcc.ch/index.htm (my emphasis) Better still, you should read the current IPCC budget document http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager...and_budget.pdf "Assessments of climate change by the IPCC, drawing on the work of hundreds of scientists from all over the world, enable policymakers at all levels of government to take sound, evidence-based decisions. They represent extraordinary value as the authors volunteer their time and expertise. The running costs of the Secretariat, including the organization of meetings and travel costs of delegates from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, are covered through the IPCC Trust Fund." So the academics who are members of the IPCC *do* give their time for free, in the sense they are not paid up IPCC employees, rather their time is *donated* by their real employers, which are academic or scientific institutions such as universities, government departments, etc. .... which real employers no doubt pay their employees who would suffer if IPCC global warming became unimportant. the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of its own. Sorry, but you're being played. Yes, it's a wonder that they can't feel their strings being pulled. It reminds me of the old Punch cartoon 'They both think they are saying 'am, sir". -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 21/10/2018 03:54, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 13:19:42 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 20/10/2018 04:27, Eric Stevens wrote: On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:29:03 +0100, Java Jive wrote: But the effect will never be large enough to explain any more than a small fraction of the current warming. That's your opinion, No, stop wasting everyone's time and go back and read the Wikipedia article I linked again. Good God! Wikipedia! Is that where you get your science from? The Wikipedia article I quoted was even-handed and had links of provenance, unlike almost everything that you've quoted, and both it and the CLOUD results agreed that the effects, if even real, were an order of magnitude too small to explain global warming. Wikipedia is known to be biased on climate matters and battles royal have raged on its pages trying to push the text in one direction or another. The only people who thinks it's seriously biased are denialists. The opinion above is that of almost every other commentator on Svensmark's work (in what follows, please read the *entirety* of it before replying at the end if you wish to do so - I've deliberately cut out Svensmark's own replies, because they are basically repetitions of themselves, so in the interests of balance let me state before quoting the following that the main protagonists of Svensmark's work are Svensmark himself and his academic superior, and that there is some experimental support for his work, but not at a sufficient level to account for at best anything more than a comparatively small fraction of the currently observed warming): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark "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." "An early (2003) critique by physicist Peter Laut of Svensmark's theory reanalyzed Svensmark's data and suggested that it does not support a correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature changes; it also disputes some of the theoretical bases for the theory.[25]" A lot has happened since 2003 including several experiments carried out at CERN. So, as I expected, you couldn't resist waiting 'til the end to reply. This is another well-known denialist ploy, fragmenting the evidence thus making it hard to follow. "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," "In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[29] which found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity in the last 20 years." "Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect in global satellite cloud data". Harrison studied the effect of cosmic rays in the UK.[31] He states: "Although the statistically significant non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate variations when day-to-day variability averages out". Brian H. Brown (2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant (p0.05) short term 3% association between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR) and low level clouds over 22 years with a 15-hour delay. Long-term changes in cloud cover ( 3 months) and GCR gave correlations of p=0.06.[32]" [Note the low correlation figures] "More recently, Laken et al. (2012)[33] found that new high quality satellite data show that the El Niño Southern Oscillation is responsible for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They also found that galactic cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance did not have any statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover." Willis Esenbach would suggest that they did not ask the right questions of the data. Link? "Lockwood (2012)[34] conducted a thorough review of the scientific literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have been exaggerated." "Sloan and Wolfendale (2013)[35] demonstrated that while temperature models showed a small correlation every 22 years, less than 14 percent of global warming since the 1950s could be attributed to cosmic ray rate. The study concluded that the cosmic ray rate did not match the changes in temperature, indicating that it was not a causal relationship. Another 2013 study found, contrary to Svensmark's claims, "no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and global albedo or globally averaged cloud height."[36]" "In a detailed 2013 post on the scientists' blog RealClimate, Rasmus E. Benestad presented arguments for considering Svensmark's claims to be "wildly exaggerated".[38]" So, basically, it's Svensmark and his boss against most of the rest of the academic world. It may turn out that cosmic rays become accepted as causing some influence on climate, but it's very, very, very unlikely to be so strongly that we can ignore CO2, as the gist of your posts here have implied. I have not suggested ignoring CO2. Indeed I would like to see it occupying its rightful place in the climate pantheon. It's true that you haven't actually stated as much, but the direction of your posts here make it clear that you think it relatively unimportant. You know, you really ought to get into the habit of researching properly *everything* you say in threads like these, it would save you making a **** of yourself so often: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor "In science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter between candidate models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives. Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5]" Aah. That's a philosopher writing. The author is concerned about their ability to build a rigorous philosophical structure. But in scientific matters you exclude complex solutions at your peril. Nonsense, you choose the simplest explanation of the known facts, and that is that CO2 and other so-called 'greenhouse' gases cause global warming. BTW, you may care to learn that if they didn't, the average temperature of the planet would be below freezing, as it was during 'snowball earth', and that if it wasn't for CO2 from volcanism causing warming, the planet would still be stuck in snowball earth, and we wouldn't even exist! |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:13:53 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-21 04:55, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 23:37:03 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-20 22:41, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:14:23 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-19 23:06, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] I was merely explaining my mathematical background. [...] Does that include chaos theory and fractals? Nope. I was too early for that but I have read some of the introductory materials by Lorenz and Poincarre. But that was a long time ago. Ah, that explains why you believe that statistical analysis is enough to refute claims of anthropogenic global warming. No! Nonsense! I don't believe that at all. Quite the reverse in fact. From what I have read I suspect some quite shonky statistical analysis has been used to support claims of anthropogenic global warming. I don't know enough to properly reach that conclusion myself the poor quality of statistics in much work related to climate study has been heavily criticised by people who are qualified to do so. e.g. McKittrick, and Wegman. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report I not only read "introductory materials", I constructed and ran models of simple chaotic systems as described in some of the texts. I did so because hands-on is the only way to understand what the math means [1]. (Sidebar: one of the models produced a lovely parabola, randomly placed spot by randomly placed spot, as the system cycled through its states.the parabola began to emerge at around 500 iterations, but was still visibly gappy after 5,000.) I got that far on a computer many years, more as entertainment than anything else. Take-away 1: Any system of three or more entities that mutually influence each other is a chaotic system. Take-away 2: One can compute any given state of such a system directly from its initial state at T(0). You have to calculate its state at T(1), T(2), T(3),... T(N-2), T(N-1). (That is, the system cannot be described by a set of equations such that its state at T(N) is function of N.) Take-away 3: The systems that matter most to us human beings are mostly chaotic. The weather. The climate. The economy. The ecosystems that supply us with food. The social systems that enable us to live decent lives. Our health. Traffic on motorways. And so on. Yep. Which causes some people to ask why it is thought possible to model climate. Footnote [1]: A set of numbers is meaningless without a context. Suppose I tell you that the median score on a school test was 76 correct out of one hundred. Is that good or bad or somewhere in between? How would you decide? Since you claim you are able "check the raw data", you should be able to answer those questions with no trouble at all. THats meaningless on its own. Exactly. So why do you claim the ability to asses the value of raw climate data? Forgive me, but I thought it was the people who say they can detect the hand of man in global warming who claim they can assess the value of what raw climate data we have. Surely the verification of this claim is fundamental to the acceptance of their conclusions. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 22/10/2018 00:17, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:33:56 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 21/10/2018 02:48, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Roger Blake wrote: 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 is the denialists who cannot base their beliefs on science, as may shown simply by the fact that throughout the entirety of this thread and elsewhere neither Eric nor any other denialist has managed to produce any provenance for their beliefs that is able to pass even the most cursory rational investigation. I'm sure what you mean by 'provenance' but I suspect it means approval by a person or persons on the approved list. No, there is no such thing as an 'approved list'. It means work that has been submitted for, accepted for, and passed peer-review by other scientists knowledgeable in the field in question, which here means other climate scientists. Alternatively, articles in such places as Wikipedia that review, link to, and quote from such work, are acceptable as long the article is obviously trying to be accurate and fair (as, in fact, most Wikipedia articles that I've ever read are, the most likely exceptions being ones about politicians that sometimes get 'edited' by people who turn out to be their own staff). https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr You will find more info at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/ Time wasting #1: You've been told several times already that denialist blog sites such as w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m have no scientific provenance whatsoever, less even than I commenting here, because I supply links of scientific provenance to support what I say, they by and large do not; anybody can post anything they like on them, as long as the denialist 'editor' allows. The fact that you persist in linking to such garbage despite this being explained to you many times in several different ways over the course of this thread shows that some or all of the following are true: You have F*k all understanding of the scientific process. You have f*k all understanding of planetary science. You hold irrational quasi-religious beliefs about climate science. You have a vested, possibly monetary interest in climate denialism. You have a vested, possibly monetary interest in that website. You take a juvenile perverse delight in wasting other people's time. Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? Time wasting #2: You have already been told that linking to an image out of context is unscientific. Time wasting #3: Also, you have failed again to perform due diligence: https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htm "Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project (ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization" See also the many, many climate 'myths' originating from him that are listed and debunked on that page, myth by myth. 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. Time wasting #4: As #1. Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Time wasting #5: Already flogged to death - has been the subject of some controversy, but even if true, effects are too small to explain current warming. https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...t_spring09.pdf or http://tinyurl.com/p2rz7kf Time wasting #6: As #1. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...rature-trends/ or http://tinyurl.com/y9bb32tq Time wasting #7: As #1. 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. Whereas denialists such as yourself just make these sweeping claims without any scientific provenance whatsoever, and are then abusive, when, unsurprisingly, no-one believes you! Here you show why you and peple like me will never agree. First you are again relying on 'provenance' rather than the actual facts of the situation. Again, you prove that you know f*k all about the scientific method. The facts are determined by scientific provenance, without that they are not facts. Second you say "no-one believes you!" when the true test is whether or not anyone confirms that the facts are as described and are correct. Which is done by scientific provenance, not by denialists endlessly asserting the same lies apparently in the belief that if they repeat the same false magic incantations often enough, Harry Potter will make them come true. By falling back on belief you are turning this into a quasi-religious argument where following the creed is of fundamental importance. That's *exactly* what *you* are doing - I've linked to scientific provenance for everything I've claimed, you've linked mostly to denialist sites of f*k all scientific provenance, and the few sites of any provenance you have managed to find make exaggerated claims which have not found wider scientific acceptance. Nor does CO2. :-) Smiley or not, that has been proven to be a lie in so many different ways, most convincingly of all by the original 1850s experiments and the Berkeley results, that the fact that you are now obviously lying proves that you've lost the rational argument. I'm not lying, whether obviously or not. If you wish to avoid the accusation, stop stating assertions as though they were facts while failing to provide provenance to establish them as facts, as you do yet again below. First the CO2 causes global warming relies on a feedback mechanism employing water vapour. There are strong grounds for concluding that the originators of this theory selected the wrong mathematical model for the feed back and also have made an error in its application. It is estimated that the error from this cause is that the heating effect is exagerated by a factor of between 2 and 3. That there is an error of this magnitude appears to have been confirmed by first-principle analysis of the data. Again, denialist assertions stated as though they are fact but with no scientific provenance. Second the physical model of the feed back requires that a hotspot should be formed in the troposphere over the tropics. No such hot spot has been observed. Again, denialist assertions stated as though they are fact but with no scientific provenance. Yes they *do*, as can be proven by the sort of minimal investigation which you could and should have done yourself throughout this entire thread, if only to save you making a **** of yourself, and in this particular case especially as someone else has *already* pointed this out previously in this same thread ... http://ipcc.ch/index.htm (my emphasis) Better still, you should read the current IPCC budget document http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager...and_budget.pdf Time wasting #8: By providing a link with no explanation you are apparently expecting others either to be psychic or to read through an entire document trying to find whatever it is that you think we ought to notice. At my last employment before I retired, my employer was charging my time out at around £70 an hour, and when choosing my pension I noted that the cost of living had about doubled in 25 years, which would inflate that figure to say, about, £115 an hour. Perhaps if I could find a way of charging denialists like yourself by hour for the time it takes to refute you, you'd stop wasting so much of everyone's time. "Assessments of climate change by the IPCC, drawing on the work of hundreds of scientists from all over the world, enable policymakers at all levels of government to take sound, evidence-based decisions. They represent extraordinary value as the authors volunteer their time and expertise. The running costs of the Secretariat, including the organization of meetings and travel costs of delegates from developing countries and countries with economies in transition, are covered through the IPCC Trust Fund." So the academics who are members of the IPCC *do* give their time for free, in the sense they are not paid up IPCC employees, rather their time is *donated* by their real employers, which are academic or scientific institutions such as universities, government departments, etc. ... which real employers no doubt pay their employees One would hope so, after all, it's the usual situation when one is employed. who would suffer if IPCC global warming became unimportant. They'd just get on with their other research or get another job in a different field. It reminds me of the old Punch cartoon 'They both think they are saying 'am, sir". I don't recall that, you will have to find a link. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|