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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive
wrote: On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: This kind of stuff is garbage. I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far. I refer you again to: http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/ The Berkely project was set up because of the general distrust of publically available data. I think they have leaned most heavily on the NOAA data but they have been throug whatever they use most carefully. Many people regard them as having the best generally available data. The 'best generally available data' doesn't support *anything* that you've claimed here, so why do you persist in posting OT misinformation unsupported by any scientific provenance? It can only be because it's a religion to you. Take your f*king OT denialist sh*te elsewhere. I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the media. That depends on the media. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with more mainstream media. I listen regularly to BBC World Service radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our webpage!" That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for selecting only one side of the argument. The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others they seem to be one eyed. --- snip --- I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but has many contributors. I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]" It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a source paper or to the data set that has been used. How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific provenance? Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or stonethrowing articles. The discussions tend to be biased Well I never, that's a surprise :-) but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source as any to track down mis- information Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical faculties. Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed. _Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research is properly peer reviewed. AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources. Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against so-called denialists or sceptics. Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here. I'm not just writing for your benefit. Even CERN has to be careful how they present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a case in point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low, suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it ever existed. Numeracy is not your strong point. But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's right, and you're wrong. The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El Nino superimposed on the long term trend. Since then warming as recommenced apace, as shown by the link above. How are your statistics? My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty. Mine are my mathematical weak point. Ah! Why am I not surprised? I was referring to statistics. My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology. Apart from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me. Then you should know better than to claim ... Apart from that, I don't agree with you about the pause. The whole situation has been confused by two El Ninos with a possible third coming up. Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation with CO2 levels. Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods? Evidence? Published scientific literature. An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence. I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points of 30 years of reading on the subject. It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had a political or personal agenda. You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age. Apart from that chris has shown no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of ferreting. I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong. How do you explain the changes shown in https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/ The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our current climate change phenomenon. How has it been distorted? I agree, I should have written discounted. It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem poorly familiar with). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]" Hoo! That's a put down. No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the *entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming. Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find his recent papers at the link which I have already given you http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Follow the money. That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers: And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there any evidence they have an axe to grind? In short, no! You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was threatened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change "Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of those studies." Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?! If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all persons and organizations who finate climate research. It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil. Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of $100,000,000? Many are. Who? All the signatories to the Paris Agreement. That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to reduce their standard of living. They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The two are not necessarily linked. You will make a fortune if you can prove that is possible. There are few better. At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I agree. You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one conclusion. It cannot be fudged. If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged? That's a loaded question. As are all your arguments. I have never said that HadCRUT data has been fudged, although the Climategate emails suggest very strongly that they have been. What I have done is provide a link to an article which suggests that the standard of HadCRUT's data is highly suspect. Ah, I knew we'd get to Climategate sooner or later, after all, it's the denialists' favourite weapon of mass distraction. Unfortunately for you, there have been two independent investigations which cleared the scientists involved of any intention to deceive. See appended. Actually, there have been four enquiries, non of which were truly independent. Nevertheless the documented deeds remain. I agree, statistics can be used to bamboozle the ignorant. However this aspect started with my mention of a paper involving Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr McKitrick is one of the last people likely to be mislead by dubious statistics. He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his ramblings. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says. No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams. Are you referring to the upwelling at the equator? Well, that does happen as a result of the coriolos effect. You will see a small diagram of this in fig 3 of http://www.marbef.org/wiki/ocean_circulation Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to finding evidence of warming. Read paras 1 and 2 of https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is already a given. It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm this. You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land. Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC. Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to acceptance of what the science is telling us ... [order changed to restore clarity of argument] That's politics again. THat's still politics and nothing much to with science. More politics. Even more politics. Yet more politics. That's internal politics. Following on from my last sentence above, I gave numerous examples (now snipped in the interests of brevity) that demonstrated that politicians, particularly US ones, are mostly anti-AGW and/or measures to combat it, and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any acceptance of it, but, judging from your replies which I've left above, you seemed to have misread the purpose of their inclusion. You are right, but even if I have got the dates wrong I am right that the reason that they were looking for anthropogenic global warming is that this is what they were set up to do. I've already pointed out above that I'd heard of AGW as long ago as the late 1960s/early 1970s, so what is perhaps surprising that it took until 1988, when the IPCC was set up, to set up a body to investigate it, and, as you yourself have previously linked, they were set up to (my emphasis) ... ROLE 2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a *comprehensive*, *objective*, *open* and *transparent* basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. 3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments. So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's exactly what they do, but so what? The whole thing smacks of research to support Lysenkoism. The conclusion is preordained. Any idea that this is some global conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked conspiracy theory. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a scientific truth. It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method. I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results where there might not be any. If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't it been accepted as falsified? Because it hasn't been. The modelling is not perfect and needs to be improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth continuing and refining. How long can that argument be continued if the results don't come in? Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions' in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your OT sh*te elsewhere. The science is settled? Then why is so much money being spent in funding an enormous amount of research into the mechanics of climate change? ClimateGate =========== ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more recent times since the invention of thermometers. AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data. If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and replace it with data that is known to be good, ... The data wasn't known to be good. It's just that it came from an era when it could not be contradicted by modern technology. The tgruth is the we don't really know how good (or bad) the data was. ... and ensure that you explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done. As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...termediate.htm "The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and IPCC reports" - ah yes, but only after it was discovered. However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it should have been: And it corrupted the understanding of the data. "The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis): The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2] "should havebeen made plain". However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.”" But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history. As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has yet explained. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Ads |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote: That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for selecting only one side of the argument. The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it. There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ... The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others they seem to be one eyed. Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion that is not based on nor will be swayed by science. I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but has many contributors. I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]" It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a source paper or to the data set that has been used. How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific provenance? Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or stonethrowing articles. How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis. but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source as any to track down mis- information Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical faculties. Time you started to acquire them. Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here. I'm not just writing for your benefit. You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Even CERN has to be careful how they present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a case in point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low, suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small compared to that of CO2. How are your statistics? My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty. Mine are my mathematical weak point. Ah! Why am I not surprised? I was referring to statistics. I know, and I wasn't surprised. My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology. Outside of my mainstream studies, I also took a unit in each of Astronomy, Geology And The Environment, Psychology, and Music. So what? Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation with CO2 levels. I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as in ... Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods? .... the implication being that there might have been something wrong about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're just trying to sling mud. But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science. I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points of 30 years of reading on the subject. It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had a political or personal agenda. You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age. I note that you do not attempt to refute my point, but instead try to move the goalposts, a typical denialist ploy, and I'm not falling for it. Apart from that chris has shown no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of ferreting. I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong. How do you explain the changes shown in https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/ It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA & NOAA for an explanation and/or gave them a chance to comment before publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked, because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again, this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only offer guesses. Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it. You yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of inconsistency and fraud! No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the *entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming. Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find his recent papers at the link which I have already given you http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory stands, according the figures already published it can only account for a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on its way out from Earth's surface! In short, no! You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was threatened? Only for the worse in our ability to predict the future, and, anyway, how would that change global warming itself? Do you seriously believe it will suddenly stop just because no-one is investigating it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change "Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of those studies." Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?! If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all persons and organizations who finate climate research. It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil. Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of $100,000,000? I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute "In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2][3]:233–34[4] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[8]" Note the link between tobacco denialism and climate change denialism, which tells you all you need to know - the latter learnt from the techniques of the former. As far as funding goes, and, again, note the link with tobacco ... "Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Institute, including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[81][115] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[52] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[115][116][117][not in citation given] Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[115] The Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[3]:234 Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly.[113] State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former supporters.[118] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link...between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[57] The Institute opposes legislation on passive smoking as infringing on personal liberty and the rights of owners of bars and other establishments.[119]" So again I ask, why are acting as the unpaid employee of big oil? Or perhaps you are not unpaid? Many are. Who? All the signatories to the Paris Agreement. That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to reduce their standard of living. They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The two are not necessarily linked. You will make a fortune if you can prove that is possible. In other words, you have no real answer to that statement of fact. Actually, there have been four enquiries, non of which were truly independent. Nevertheless the documented deeds remain. They were cleared of dishonestly and intentional wrong-doing, get used to it. So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's exactly what they do, but so what? The whole thing smacks of research to support Lysenkoism. The conclusion is preordained. LOL! Coming from a denialist, that is breathtakingly hypocritical, but, although it tells us nothing useful about the IPCC, it does reveal much about the way your mind works - because you think in terms conspiracies, you also think that everyone else must be part of one! The sad, simple truth is that neither you nor the world are that interesting! Its history shows that most governments couldn't organise the proverbial function in a brewery, let alone create and maintain over many decades some fantastical global conspiracy against you or me or anyone else. I hardly expected to mention Jane Austen's novels twice in a thread about global warming denialism, but the fact that I can with some justification merely shows how unchanging is human nature, including its many flaws. Her novel 'Northanger Abbey' is partly about a young woman who reads too many far-fetched and fantastic novels and, when she is unexpectedly invited to stay at the rather spooky eponymous residence, makes the mistake of thinking that its widowed proprietor somehow did away with his wife - the truth about her death turns out to be less interesting. Similarly today we are plied endlessly with fantastically unrealistic films where one man succeeds in winning through against some ubiquitous conspiracy involving everyone from the president himself down to the man sweeping the street in front of the hero's house, none of whom he can trust. Thankfully, the world is just not like that, but sadly, global warming is really real and is really happening, and so the IPCC were set up to investigate it, and are doing so. This, however boring, is the simple truth. Any idea that this is some global conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked conspiracy theory. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a scientific truth. Only to those like yourself so misguided as to deny it. Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions' in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your OT sh*te elsewhere. The science is settled? Then why is so much money being spent in funding an enormous amount of research into the mechanics of climate change? To improve the modelling so that we can predict the effects better. ClimateGate =========== ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more recent times since the invention of thermometers. AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data. If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and replace it with data that is known to be good, ... The data wasn't known to be good. It's just that it came from an era when it could not be contradicted by modern technology. The tgruth is the we don't really know how good (or bad) the data was. It was known to be good, because we have had reasonably accurate thermometers for hundreds of years, let alone since 1960, and there is no need of 'modern technology' to measure temperature. ... and ensure that you explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done. As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...termediate.htm "The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and IPCC reports" - ah yes, but only after it was discovered. Read again what I wrote in my introduction above, it was discovered in *1995*, *over a decade before* ClimateGate in 2009! Wriggle as you may, there is no way that you can make this part of your irrational global conspiracy. However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it should have been: And it corrupted the understanding of the data. Yes, at least one of the investigations openly acknowledged that, but that still doesn't make it a conspiracy, and the same investigation stated that it could find no evidence for one. "The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis): The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2] "should havebeen made plain". Exactly, but again that's a mistake or oversight, not a conspiracy. Read again the following ... However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.”" But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history. As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has yet explained. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 2018-10-19, Java Jive wrote:
Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion that is not based on nor will be swayed by science. Yes, it is tough dealing with these Warmists and their irrational, pseudo-religious belief that *we* are causing the earth's climate to change and that we will therefore take control of the climate to steer it back to whatever we think it should be. It's utter bilge of course, but it doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you put in front of the climate hucksters and their rank-and-file useful idiots. With so much power, control, taxes, funding, grants, etc. on the line, the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of its own. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:20:38 +0100, Chris wrote:
[ re-sending this as messed up the follow-ups ] On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote: That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for selecting only one side of the argument. The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others they seem to be one eyed. If something is proved then no counterbalancing is required. Just like you don't need a flat-earther involved when discussing circumnavigating the globe. The media are responsible for false equivalence by always trying to show 'balance' when there isn't any. You are misguided if you equate flatearthers with the dissatisfaction with IPCC global warming theory. In the UK we have a media regulator which requires outlets which present and discuss the news to abide by the rules. The BBC is no different to any other outlet in the UK be it online, TV or on print. In the above case the BBC was rightly castigated for allow Nigel Lawson (a known climate change denier and chairman of the rather shady GWPF) an unchallenged voice on the Today programme. I am not sure whether I should be ammused or saddened at your apparent need to attach descriptors (for guidance?) to a selected group of the nouns you employ. You should be aware that it makes no difference to the merits (or otherwise) of what they say, the quality of which you should assess from first principles. --- snip --- I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but has many contributors. I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]" It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a source paper or to the data set that has been used. How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific provenance? Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or stonethrowing articles. And yet you're quite happy to throw away evidence as being 'political' rather than actually engaging with it. Somebody's opinion is not evidence, especially whan it is quoted in a digested form by a second person for publication in a third parson'ss news media. It is quite obvious that all the climate change denial fora are funded by the fossil fuel industry and although there is some research challenging the consensus the vast, vast majority of publicly funded science is behind and supports the model of human-induced climate change via the emission of greenhouse gases. Science requires there to be dissenting voices to make sure the science is sound. Evolution and the Big Bang were aggressively challenged for a long time before being accepted, this made the theories stronger and more accurate. Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed. _Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research is properly peer reviewed. AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources. Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against so-called denialists or sceptics. If the science was bulletproof there'd be no problem in publishing it. Plenty of unpopular/challenging research is published in peer-reviewed journals all the time. It is my observation that the denialists prefer not to publish in scientific journals because it is hard. Books are easier to publish and make more money... You seem unaware of how hard it is for the people you call denialists to get published in most of the mainstream journals. Horror stories abound and if true are quite sufficient to explain why you see so little of their work. Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here. I'm not just writing for your benefit. Even CERN has to be careful how they present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a case in point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low, suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery A scientists publication record in isolation gives no indication of its influence or importance. Einstein anybody? My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology. You know that psychology is in the middle of a huge crisis down to misinterpretation of data and overuse of bad statistical practices, right? http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716 If that's your basis for statistical understanding, I recommend you re-visit modern statistics. That's ethics, and the criticism applies just as much to medical research and science in general. Climate research is not exempt. 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/ Two things: 1) the graphs are a mixture US only data or global data. Unsurprisingly they show different things As far as I can tell, they are all global data with the exception of the second graph which is labeled Northern Hemisphere. I am surprised you didn't look. 2) The quality of data could quite easily be improved over time, especially with a better network of temperature sensors 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 Go on - read it. Its seious stuff and its got data. Here is a later one https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...rature-trends/ or http://tinyurl.com/y9bb32tq ... which is Anthony Watts 2015 presentation to the American Geophysical Union. The use of the work 'fake' is utterly wrong. Modelled or 'imputed' data is perfectly valid and used across all fields of science - with one important caveat that hte assumed model is correct. Given the site doesn't challenge that implies they don't understand what they're talking about. They were writing for readers who take for granted that 'the map is not the territory'. Plus, it's 50% of 'fake' data is wrong. It's more like 80% - the idiot forgot the oceans. Except it's not. We now have swathes of satellites and temperature buoys measuring sea temperatures. Its not the 'idiot' who forgot it. It may be the persons who created the various graphs. The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our current climate change phenomenon. How has it been distorted? I agree, I should have written discounted. It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem poorly familiar with). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]" Hoo! That's a put down. No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the *entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming. Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find his recent papers at the link which I have already given you http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Except it's influence has been 'exaggerated' there just isn't enough energy in cosmic rays to influence Earth's climate so much. Even so it is now included in global models making them more accurate. Well, how about this for evidence? Professor Valentina Zharkova presents evidence for and possible cause of 400 year solar cycle which matches Maunder (grand) Minimum (1645-1715), Wolf (grand) minimum (1200), Oort (grand) minimum (1010-1050), Homer (grand) minimum (800-900 BC); the medieval (900-1200) warm period, Roman (400-10BC) and other warm periods. https://mailchi.mp/071cef970071/invi...3?e=99957e2afe or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd For what it is worth, the Russians have never accepted the CO2 based IPCC theory but increasingly strongly have been pointing their finger at the sun. --- snip --- -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive
wrote: On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote: That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for selecting only one side of the argument. The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it. There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ... Its very much open to interpretation as I wrote below. The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others they seem to be one eyed. Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion that is not based on nor will be swayed by science. Hmmmm. I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but has many contributors. I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]" It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a source paper or to the data set that has been used. How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific provenance? Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or stonethrowing articles. How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis. You are confused. The so-called 'bull' that I read is at a technical level which I would not expect to be presented by a popular broadcaster. The so-call 'bull' that I read contains all kinds of technical information which I variously reject, accept or put in abeyance for further judgement. I pay little attention to opinion pieces with no checkable theory or data. but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source as any to track down mis- information Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical faculties. Time you started to acquire them. Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here. I'm not just writing for your benefit. You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Even CERN has to be careful how they present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a case in point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low, suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small compared to that of CO2. There you are then. Who is it who has the closed mind now? How are your statistics? My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty. Mine are my mathematical weak point. Ah! Why am I not surprised? I was referring to statistics. I know, and I wasn't surprised. My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology. Outside of my mainstream studies, I also took a unit in each of Astronomy, Geology And The Environment, Psychology, and Music. So what? I was merely explaining my mathematical background. Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation with CO2 levels. I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as in ... Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods? ... the implication being that there might have been something wrong about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're just trying to sling mud. I was merely checking on your willingness to accept unverified data. I've been following this field for long enough to have learned tat you should accept no data without learning more about it. But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science. I'm glad you have done that. But I don't know that Berkely ever got access to raw undigested data. I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points of 30 years of reading on the subject. It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had a political or personal agenda. You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age. I note that you do not attempt to refute my point, but instead try to move the goalposts, a typical denialist ploy, and I'm not falling for it. That's not a point but a cloud which there is no point trying to refute. Apart from that chris has shown no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of ferreting. I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong. How do you explain the changes shown in https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/ It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA & NOAA for an explanation ... What makes you think it hasn't been done? ... and/or gave them a chance to comment before publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked, because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again, this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only offer guesses. I agree. Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it. You don't alter data as a result of modelling it! Surely not! That's making the data fit the theory instead of vice versa. Mind you, they have been accused of that. You yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of inconsistency and fraud! The basic data is what you have got and it is abhorrent that it should be tinkered with. If the data is bad in one way or another you build that into the error margins and uncertainty. But you leave the data alone. Surely you were taught that in Stage 1 physics? I certainly was. No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the *entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming. Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find his recent papers at the link which I have already given you http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory stands, according the figures already published it can only account for a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on its way out from Earth's surface! You may be interested in: https://mailchi.mp/071cef970071/invi...3?e=99957e2afe or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd In short, no! You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was threatened? Only for the worse in our ability to predict the future, and, anyway, how would that change global warming itself? Do you seriously believe it will suddenly stop just because no-one is investigating it? But they are not investigating global warming. They are investigating anthropogenic global warming almost to the exclusion of all else. It is the exponents of the all else who are being described as deniers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change "Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of those studies." Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?! If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all persons and organizations who finate climate research. It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil. Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of $100,000,000? I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute. Answer: Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project --- long tail snipped --- -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
Roger Blake wrote:
On 2018-10-19, Java Jive wrote: Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion that is not based on nor will be swayed by science. Yes, it is tough dealing with these Warmists and their irrational, pseudo-religious belief that *we* are causing the earth's climate to change and that we will therefore take control of the climate to steer it back to whatever we think it should be. It's utter bilge of course, but it doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you put in front of the climate hucksters and their rank-and-file useful idiots. What's it like looking in the mirror? The evidence is hugely supportive of human induced climate change. There is evidence to support other theories, but it isn't anywhere near as complete nor been shown to influence the climate as much as CO2. If there's a side that refuses to accept the evidence it is not the climate scientists. With so much power, control, taxes, funding, grants, etc. on the line, The balance of power and money is massively in favour of the fossil fuel industry who have a vested ibterest in sowing doubt wherever they can. the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of its own. Sorry, but you're being played. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:11:50 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-19 22:40, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] Somebody's opinion is not evidence, especially whan it is quoted in a digested form by a second person for publication in a third parson'ss news media. [...] OK, here's some factual reporting for you, from people who have first-hand experience of global warming: https://www.arctictoday.com/warming-...elting-faster/ And my own observations: In the early 1960s, we drove from our then home in Edmonton, Alberta, to Vancouver, British Columbia, and thence to Saltspring Island. We decided to drive through Jasper and Banff National Parks, a first for us. The Columbia Icefield straddles the border between the two parks. The foot of the glacier was about 100 meters from the highway. In 2005, we drove past there again, to climb Parker Ridge (just inside Banff Park). The foot of the glacier was now about 1km 1 km away. 1) I suspect you are confusing climate with weather. 2) There is no argument about whether or not there is global warming: there is. More facts for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Icefield https://calgaryherald.com/news/local...aciers-by-2100 NB that the Calgary Herald is a right-wing paper with a decidedly anti-warming, pro-fossil fuel bias. However, Calgary's water supply depends on the Rocky Mountain glaciers, which feed the rivers that water the Canadian Prairies. S. Alberta is semi-arid. Water supply is top-of-mind for people living there. You could also search for "glacier shrinkage in Glacier National Park". GNP is the US side of a border-straddling park. The Canadian side is Waterton Lakes National Park. Check that out, too. You could also search for 'glacier shrinkage in New Zealand' (where I live. They have been shrinking for centuries. the only serious unknown about global warming is how fast it's happening. Will the climate tumble into a new cycle over a century or two? Or will it tip within a few decades? I won't be around to find out, but my children and grandchildren will. I suspect you are younger than I am so you will have a good chance of finding out whether Professor Valentina Zharkova's theory about solar cycles is correct. Even I might make it. Enjoy your Gulf Stream buffered climate while you still have it. You won't have it much longer. I could hardly be further from the Gulf Stream than I am now. I visited the Orkneys about 17 years ago. At that time there was a great flap in the literature about how the Gulf Stream could/might be/was slowing down. I mentioned this to the locals and I remeber how upset they became at the thought (I don't blame them). Needless to say it hasn't yet happened and it still seems to be merely a hypothetical possibility. Nevertheless the evidence is that it ha slowed down a number of times in the past and it is to be expected that it will in the future. But what does only a thousand or so years of grim climate really matter? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 22:59:02 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-20 21:46, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:11:50 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-19 22:40, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] Somebody's opinion is not evidence, especially whan it is quoted in a digested form by a second person for publication in a third parson'ss news media. [...] OK, here's some factual reporting for you, from people who have first-hand experience of global warming: https://www.arctictoday.com/warming-...elting-faster/ And my own observations: In the early 1960s, we drove from our then home in Edmonton, Alberta, to Vancouver, British Columbia, and thence to Saltspring Island. We decided to drive through Jasper and Banff National Parks, a first for us. The Columbia Icefield straddles the border between the two parks. The foot of the glacier was about 100 meters from the highway. In 2005, we drove past there again, to climb Parker Ridge (just inside Banff Park). The foot of the glacier was now about 1km 1 km away. 1) I suspect you are confusing climate with weather. What makes yu think that. Citing only one or two years of weather as evidence of climate change. The standard definition requires 30 years of weather data to assess climate. 2) There is no argument about whether or not there is global warming: there is. Yes, and it's happening faster than it should, if the only variables were the non-human ones. That's only an assumption. Too many researchers are assuming that the only variables are the ones we know now. Actually, its worse than that, they are assuming that the only variables are the ones we knew 20 years ago. [snip] -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
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. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:09:18 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-21 04:37, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 22:59:02 -0400, Wolf wrote: On 2018-10-20 21:46, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:11:50 -0400, Wolf wrote: On 2018-10-19 22:40, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] Somebody's opinion is not evidence, especially whan it is quoted in a digested form by a second person for publication in a third parson'ss news media. [...] OK, here's some factual reporting for you, from people who have first-hand experience of global warming: https://www.arctictoday.com/warming-...elting-faster/ And my own observations: In the early 1960s, we drove from our then home in Edmonton, Alberta, to Vancouver, British Columbia, and thence to Saltspring Island. We decided to drive through Jasper and Banff National Parks, a first for us. The Columbia Icefield straddles the border between the two parks. The foot of the glacier was about 100 meters from the highway. In 2005, we drove past there again, to climb Parker Ridge (just inside Banff Park). The foot of the glacier was now about 1km 1 km away. 1) I suspect you are confusing climate with weather. What makes yu think that. Citing only one or two years of weather as evidence of climate change. The standard definition requires 30 years of weather data to assess climate. Our second trip past the Columbia Ice Field was 41 years after our first. In those 41 years the foot of the glacier retreated well over half a kilometer. [snip] Here is a graphic pictorial display of but one of many New Zealand glaciers https://teara.govt.nz/files/p-10735-doc.jpg While this only shows changes since 1865 the glacier has retreated many miles from where it was in the late 18th century. Glacier retreat is a longstanding phenomenon. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|