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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|