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 |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
Chris wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons) from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global warming failed due to the current cooling). Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish. https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do. Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. We should be going into another ice age but gamma radiation hence cloud cover has increased to delay it. Gee, yeah, when we do get into the next ice age, we'll get taxed for not outputting enough emissions to keep the planet in our comfort zone and prevent reduction in crop volume (if we're still here in the very short 100,000 years from now). Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around atop of it. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 10/16/2018 01:55 AM, Chris wrote:
[snip] Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. That reminds me of a movie I saw once, where there was a worldwide shortage of oxygen and the government's solution was to burn down the forests (with the idea that trees were competitors). |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been changing for billions of years. Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is frankly frightening. https://xkcd.com/1732/ CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum Human induced climate change is very much open to debate. Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the evidence for it. http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community is unprecedented. 194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too late. I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen but you will find information about it at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent accuracy. Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better. Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures. Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very credible, I'm afraid. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being no warming. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 16/10/2018 17:15, VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. In what follows, there was no smiley, so it's not clear whether you were being sarcastic or not, so I have to assume that you weren't ... Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons) from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global warming failed due to the current cooling). There is no current cooling, the last three years have been the three hottest on record: http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_graph Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. We should be going into another ice age but gamma radiation hence cloud cover has increased to delay it. If we are really being stopped from going back into an ice age, it's most probably AGW that's doing it. In the first link above, there is a very good correlation between levels of CO2 and increases in temperature, and we know this correlation is causation because of work by Eunice Foot & John Tyndall as long ago as the 1850s: http://www.climatechangenews.com/201...efore-tyndall/ Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements There's a very good correlation between Milankovitch's predictions and the record of sea levels, and therefore ice ages, from sources such as raised coral reefs in Barbados. It's not reproduced in this report, but episode 6 'The Ice Age' of the BBC series 'Earth Story' overlaid a graph of data from Barbados onto a graph of Milankovitch predictions, and the fit is breathtakingly good, to all intents and purposes, exact: https://blogs.ei.columbia.edu/2018/0...vels-barbados/ |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
VanguardLH wrote:
Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons) from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global warming failed due to the current cooling). Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break! Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish. https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do. Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar. Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists look at. E.g https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change is far too rapid. Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around atop of it. Don't be daft, this isn't about tax. |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
In message , VanguardLH
writes: [] deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do. [] Do they need to - isn't it skewed enough on its own? "One cannot hope to bribe or twist thank god! the British journalist. But when you see what he will do UNbribed, there's no occasion to!" I forget who coined that little ditty, but it was I think in the earlier part of the 20th century. (And of course it applies to a lot more than just the British media!) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf (Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public [UK citizens opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.) only] https://petition.parliament.uk/petit...BYobumelL9J54c .... she has never contracted A-listeria or developed airs and graces. Kathy Lette on Kylie, RT 2014/1/11-17 |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been changing for billions of years. Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is frankly frightening. https://xkcd.com/1732/ That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix them at the next major review. You will find more info at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/ CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static for the last twenty years or so. To compound the matter the heat content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth. Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun. Human induced climate change is very much open to debate. Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the evidence for it. http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community is unprecedented. There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this situation. 194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the money is expected to flow from. The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too late. I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen but you will find information about it at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent accuracy. Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better. What are you? Are you even a scientist? In fact, if you knew more about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data. There are few better. Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures. Pity. You might have learned something. Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very credible, I'm afraid. Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't understand what you are getting at. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being no warming. 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 Then read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge "The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it was that they were directed to find. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons) from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global warming failed due to the current cooling). Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break! You need to read more widely. Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish. https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do. Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar. Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists look at. E.g https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change is far too rapid. Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around atop of it. Don't be daft, this isn't about tax. Isn't it? See what happens when some of these study grants are removed. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been changing for billions of years. Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is frankly frightening. https://xkcd.com/1732/ That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix them at the next major review. No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a strength as it shows willingness to improve. You will find more info at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/ Do you have any sources that aren't partisan? Plus, blogs aren't science. Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog. Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed. CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static for the last twenty years or so. Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it ever existed. To compound the matter the heat content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth. Evidence? Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun. The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our current climate change phenomenon. Human induced climate change is very much open to debate. Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the evidence for it. http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community is unprecedented. There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this situation The incredible denials of controversy theorists is staggering! How can this be political? Politicians can't agree on anything and would sell their grandmother if it win them votes. Scientists will not and do not accept being by politicians what science is! 194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the money is expected to flow from. Many are. And that's the point. We have to try and do something. Burying our heads in the sand, didn't change facts. Especially challenging ones. The cost of doing nothing is far higher. The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too late. I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen but you will find information about it at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent accuracy. Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better. What are you? Are you even a scientist? I am. Are you? In fact, if you knew more about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data. Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of funding. There are few better. At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I agree. Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures. Pity. You might have learned something. Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very credible, I'm afraid. Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't understand what you are getting at. 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 What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being no warming. 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. Then read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge "The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it was that they were directed to find. 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. However, climate science isn't one of them. The controversy over the Climate Research Unit at UEA highlighted that there isn't a cover-up of inconvenient data going on. Transparency is key in science. Those questioning the science are far less transparent to be believed. The IPCC were tasked to do their job primarily because the evidence is so overwhelming in supporting anthropomorphic climate change. You'd have to be blind not to see it. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been changing for billions of years. Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is frankly frightening. https://xkcd.com/1732/ That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix them at the next major review. No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a strength as it shows willingness to improve. I quote: ------------------------------- The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars. McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors. Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice! Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships. Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean. When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends. Details of the worst outliers For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively. The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C). At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C. --------------------- This kind of stuff is garbage. You will find more info at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/ Do you have any sources that aren't partisan? Plus, blogs aren't science. Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog. 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. Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed. _Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research is properly peer reviewed. CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static for the last twenty years or so. 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. To compound the matter the heat content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth. Evidence? Published scientific literature. Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun. The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our current climate change phenomenon. How has it been distorted? Human induced climate change is very much open to debate. Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the evidence for it. http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community is unprecedented. There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this situation The incredible denials of controversy theorists is staggering! How can this be political? Politicians can't agree on anything and would sell their grandmother if it win them votes. Scientists will not and do not accept being by politicians what science is! Follow the money. 194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the money is expected to flow from. Many are. Who? And that's the point. We have to try and do something. Burying our heads in the sand, didn't change facts. Especially challenging ones. The cost of doing nothing is far higher. The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too late. I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen but you will find information about it at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent accuracy. Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better. What are you? Are you even a scientist? I am. Are you? I am a mechanical engineer. What are you? In fact, if you knew more about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data. Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of funding. And you complain about Watts being biased! 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. Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures. Pity. You might have learned something. Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very credible, I'm afraid. Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't understand what you are getting at. 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. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png Which model would you like to rely upon? It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being no warming. 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. Then read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge "The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it was that they were directed to find. 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? However, climate science isn't one of them. The controversy over the Climate Research Unit at UEA highlighted that there isn't a cover-up of inconvenient data going on. Transparency is key in science. I have a bridge ... Those questioning the science are far less transparent to be believed. The IPCC were tasked to do their job primarily because the evidence is so overwhelming in supporting anthropomorphic climate change. You'd have to be blind not to see it. I don't know what kind of science you practice but I suspect experimentation does not play a large part in it. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Chris wrote: Eric Stevens wrote: On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K wrote: On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote: [...] The future can only be predicted, not observed (at which point it becomes history). [...] ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven conclusions. I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate change) here ... :-) Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on what actions governments take. Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons) from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global warming failed due to the current cooling). Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others. Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish. https://science.nasa.gov/science-new...0may_longrange Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax. Can't tax the major source, so tax an available source. Of course, not giving grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation). They deliberately skewed the news media. Well, that's what gov'ts do. Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar. Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short time ranges. They talk about now, not over geological time spans. Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists look at. E.g https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change is far too rapid. Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around atop of it. Don't be daft, this isn't about tax. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 17/10/2018 05:14, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is frankly frightening. https://xkcd.com/1732/ That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix them at the next major review. I note that like most denialists preaching their religion, you state opinions as though they are facts, giving no links of *provenance*. You will find more info at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/ and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/ You'll find f*k all that is of any scientific credibility or has any valid scientific use: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "The Heartland Institute helped fund some of Watts' projects, including publishing a report on the Surface Stations project, and has invited him to be a paid speaker at its International Conference on Climate Change from 2008 to 2014.[12][13]" [The Heartland Institute is well known as a funder of dodgy denialist pseudo-science.] "Watts ... later attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]" "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]" CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static for the last twenty years or so. To compound the matter the heat content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth. Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun. Again, opinion stated as though it was fact and given no provenance. The truth is that we have known that CO2 absorbs heat radiaton since the 1850s. There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this situation. Because denialism, having lost the scientific argument, is all about politicising what has degenerated into a religious belief unfounded on any science. Your adherence to this rubbish in the face of the known science is a religious/political belief, and completely unscientific. 194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020). https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the money is expected to flow from. It's probably best we don't take the thread even further OT by discussing the many shortcomings of Trump. Apart from anything else, like all American presidents, once he's pleased his partisan electorate by doing his four or eight years' worth of damage to scientific credibility, he'll be gone for good and the world will still have to carry on dealing with climate change regardless. Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better. What are you? Are you even a scientist? I cannot speak for Chris, but I do have a scientific background. I was brought up partly by a stepfather who was a leading post-war UK scientist (but probably one that you've never heard of), held for many years a prestigious chair in Chemical Engineering, wrote a textbook on the subject that I believe is still in use today, held government advisory positions, as well as being invited to lecture all over the world, including behind the then Iron Curtain. By comparison, I merely have a first in Mathematics and Computer Science. In fact, if you knew more about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data. There are few better. How strange then that you couldn't find a link to his work, or perhaps it's not so strange, because as I've already noted, you are in the habit of declaiming your religion without any regard to its (lack of) provenance ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_McKitrick "Taken By Storm: The Troubled Science, Policy and Politics of Global Warming, published in 2002" 2002, yet the world has continued warming since then, more or less perfectly in step with the rise in CO2, as per the links I have already given elsewhere in this thread. Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures. Pity. You might have learned something. Merely that the article, like nearly all on that site, has little to no scientific credibility. It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being no warming. 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 I did. You seem to have missed the word 'objective', as in "... assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis ...". Also ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interg...Climate_Change "established in 1988" Then read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge "The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system". What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it was that they were directed to find. "an international environmental treaty adopted on 9 May 1992" So, if this came later, how can 'it' possibly have caused the modelling of the earlier scientific panel to have achieved the results that 'it' wanted? The truth, of course, is entirely different, in that the later treaty was adopted because of the frightening findings of the earlier panel. And so the irrational clown show goes endlessly on ... |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a strength as it shows willingness to improve. I quote: ------------------------------- The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars. McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors. Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice! Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships. Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean. When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends. Details of the worst outliers For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively. The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C). At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C. --------------------- 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/ Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog. 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!" 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. 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. Evidence? Published scientific literature. An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence. The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our current climate change phenomenon. How has it been distorted? 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]" 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: 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?! Many are. Who? All the signatories to the Paris Agreement. In fact, if you knew more about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data. Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of funding. And you complain about Watts being biased! He has absolutely no credentials whatsoever, even less than you. 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? In fact, of course, statistics can be fudged very easily. For example, when, back in the 80s, the UK police were trying to motivate public opinion against drunken driving, they made much of a statistic which stated something like: "x% of road accidents involve alcohol!" (I can't remember now what x was, but it was surprisingly high). The implication was that x% of accidents involved drunken driving, but if you examine the wording carefully, it means that if a drunk walked out into the road and was hit by a stone cold sober driver, that incident would be included in x - no drunken driving involved at all. A drunken passenger with a stone cold sober driver might also have been included. We were never told what percentage of accidents actually involved drunken driving! 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. 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 ... Climate scientist ousted http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1940117.stm "Dr Watson's removal will spark a huge political row - environmentalists accuse the US Government of orchestrating a campaign to have the scientist sidelined. They say Washington disliked Dr Watson's willingness to tell governments what he believes to be the unvarnished truth - that human activities are now contributing dangerously to climate change." George W Bush ... https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ws.georgewbush "Central to the revelations of double dealing is the discovery of an email sent to Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, by Myron Ebell, a director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI is an ultra-conservative lobby group that has received more than $1 million in donations since 1998 from the oil giant Exxon, which sells Esso petrol in Britain. The email, dated 3 June 2002, reveals how White House officials wanted the CEI's help to play down the impact of a report last summer by the government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the US admitted for the first time that humans are contributing to global warming. 'Thanks for calling and asking for our help,' Ebell tells Cooney. The email discusses possible tactics for playing down the report and getting rid of EPA officials, including its then head, Christine Whitman. 'It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible,' Ebell wrote in the email. 'Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired,' he added. The CEI is suing another government climate research body that produced evidence for global warming. The revelation of the email's contents has prompted demands for an investigation to see if the White House and CEI are co-ordinating the legal attack." http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/cente...l#.WjRXF83veDU "The George W. Bush administration consistently sought to undermine the public’s understanding of the view held by the vast majority of climate scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global warming.1 After coming to office, the administration asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and provide further assessment of what climate science could say about this issue.2 The NAS panel rendered a strong opinion, which, in essence, confirmed that of the IPCC. The American Geophysical Union, the world’s largest organization of earth scientists, has also released a strong statement describing human-caused disruptions of Earth’s climate.3 Yet even in the face of this overwhelming scientific concensus, Bush administration spokespersons continued to contend that the uncertainties in climate projections and fossil fuel emissions are too great to warrant mandatory action to slow emissions.4 In May 2002, President Bush expressed disdain for a State Department report5 to the United Nations that pointed to a clear human role in the accumulation of heat-trapping gases and detailed the likely negative consequences of climate change; the president called it “a report put out by the bureaucracy.”6 In September 2002, the administration removed a section on climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) annual air pollution report,7 even though the climate issue had been discussed in the report in each of the preceding five years. Then, in one well-documented case, the Bush administration blatantly tampered with the integrity of scientific analysis at a federal agency when, in June 2003, the White House tried to make a series of changes to the EPA’s draft Report on the Environment.8 A front-page article in the New York Times broke the news that White House officials tried to force the EPA to substantially alter the report’s section on climate change. The EPA report, which referenced the NAS review and other studies, stated that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change.9 Interviews with current and former EPA staff, as well as an internal EPA memo reviewed for this report, revealed that the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget demanded major amendments including: The deletion of a temperature record covering 1,000 years in order to, according to the EPA memo, emphasize “a recent, limited analysis [that] supports the administration’s favored message.” The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the White House itself—that confirmed human activity is contributing to climate change.11 The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature records funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. The elimination of the summary statement—noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate change—that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.” According to the internal EPA memo, White House officials demanded so many qualifying words such as “potentially” and “may” that the result would have been to insert “uncertainty...where there is essentially none.”" Trump ... He (how ironic that his name should be a euphemism for 'fart') is just getting into his stride ... https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...ging-explained "At the Environmental Protection Agency Just this week: The Trump administration froze new scientific grants at the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA gives out billions of dollars every year to fund research and projects throughout the country. “These grants help states pay to track air pollution, say, or restore watersheds, or support researchers studying various environmental problems,” Vox’s Brad Plumer explains. It’s unclear how long the freeze will last, and if it pertains only to new grants or to existing grants as well. As ProPublica reports: One EPA employee aware of the freeze said he had never seen anything like it in nearly a decade with the agency. Hiring freezes happened, he said, but freezes on grants and contracts seemed extraordinary. The employee said the freeze appeared to be nationwide, and as of Monday night it was not clear for how long it would be in place. But either way, the agency seems to be a target of a Trump administration hammer. Axios found there may be $815 million in budget cuts coming for the EPA, for various “environment programs and management.” The Huffington Post also reported the EPA is banned from communicating via press releases or social media communications during this time, in another blow. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that the Trump Administration has ordered the EPA take down its climate change webpage. The EPA climate change page contains links to emissions data and explainers on the current consensus in the field. (And note: the EPA scientific integrity policy states “To operate an effective science and regulatory agency like the EPA, it is also essential that political or other officials not suppress or alter scientific findings.” It’s currently unclear if the climate change page removal will happen. On Wednesday, Inside EPA reported that Trump’s EPA team have agreed to “stand down” on the order to remove the webpage." Surprisingly, scientific repression has even been true in Canada ... http://www.nature.com/news/nine-year...orship-1.19842 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. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 17/10/2018 11:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: VanguardLH wrote: Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others. Not so fast, if you please ... "Dunne et al. (2016) have presented the main outcomes of 10 years of results obtained at the CLOUD experiment performed at CERN [...] Although they observe that a fraction of cloud nuclei is effectively produced by ionisation due to the interaction of cosmic rays with the constituents of Earth atmosphere, this process is insufficient to attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and Earth magnetosphere." "Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it, although they accept that there is "considerable evidence" for solar influence on Earth's pre-industrial climate and to some degree also for climate changes in the first half of the 20th century.[27]" And so on and so forth. The full article quotes evidence *both* for and against the theory. It seems that if cosmic rays do influence cloud cover, the effect is small, as evidenced by the low levels of correlation quoted and the fact that the controversy has raged for over a decade without any clear cut findings declaring a victor. By contrast, we do have a definite and much more significant correlation between levels of atmospheric CO2 and temperature, as already linked. Don't be daft, this isn't about tax. No, but he may, or may not, have been taking the ****. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
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: No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a strength as it shows willingness to improve. I quote: ------------------------------- The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of dollars. McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors, Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors. Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80 degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953 straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly “average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice! Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia and some random ships. Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the open ocean. When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880, old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends. Details of the worst outliers For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890) had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C respectively. The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis, Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average was about 11.5°C). At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other years was 26.0°C. --------------------- 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. Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog. 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. I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but has many contributors. 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. The discussions tend to be biased but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source as any to track down information and other sources to balance the BBCs of this world. 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. Even CERN has to be careful how they present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a case in point. 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? Mine are my mathematical weak point. Apart from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me. 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. 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. 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. 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 mention of the theory that implicates the sun in climate change. Understandably there is no explanation of why the unmentioned theory is wrong. That's not science. That's argument from authority. Follow the money. That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers: And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there any evidence thay have an axe to grind? 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. 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. In fact, if you knew more about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data. Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of funding. And you complain about Watts being biased! He has absolutely no credentials whatsoever, even less than you. 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. 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. In fact, of course, statistics can be fudged very easily. For example, when, back in the 80s, the UK police were trying to motivate public opinion against drunken driving, they made much of a statistic which stated something like: "x% of road accidents involve alcohol!" (I can't remember now what x was, but it was surprisingly high). The implication was that x% of accidents involved drunken driving, but if you examine the wording carefully, it means that if a drunk walked out into the road and was hit by a stone cold sober driver, that incident would be included in x - no drunken driving involved at all. A drunken passenger with a stone cold sober driver might also have been included. We were never told what percentage of accidents actually involved drunken driving! 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 ... 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. Climate scientist ousted http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1940117.stm "Dr Watson's removal will spark a huge political row - environmentalists accuse the US Government of orchestrating a campaign to have the scientist sidelined. They say Washington disliked Dr Watson's willingness to tell governments what he believes to be the unvarnished truth - that human activities are now contributing dangerously to climate change." That's politics again. Its got nothing much to do with science. Anyway Dr Rajendra Pachauri wasn't very different. George W Bush ... https://www.theguardian.com/environm...ws.georgewbush "Central to the revelations of double dealing is the discovery of an email sent to Phil Cooney, chief of staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality, by Myron Ebell, a director of the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI). The CEI is an ultra-conservative lobby group that has received more than $1 million in donations since 1998 from the oil giant Exxon, which sells Esso petrol in Britain. The email, dated 3 June 2002, reveals how White House officials wanted the CEI's help to play down the impact of a report last summer by the government's Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), in which the US admitted for the first time that humans are contributing to global warming. 'Thanks for calling and asking for our help,' Ebell tells Cooney. The email discusses possible tactics for playing down the report and getting rid of EPA officials, including its then head, Christine Whitman. 'It seems to me that the folks at the EPA are the obvious fall guys and we would only hope that the fall guy (or gal) should be as high up as possible,' Ebell wrote in the email. 'Perhaps tomorrow we will call for Whitman to be fired,' he added. THat's still politics and nothing much to with science. The CEI is suing another government climate research body that produced evidence for global warming. The revelation of the email's contents has prompted demands for an investigation to see if the White House and CEI are co-ordinating the legal attack." http://www.ucsusa.org/our-work/cente...l#.WjRXF83veDU "The George W. Bush administration consistently sought to undermine the public’s understanding of the view held by the vast majority of climate scientists that human-caused emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases are making a discernible contribution to global warming.1 More politics. After coming to office, the administration asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to review the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and provide further assessment of what climate science could say about this issue.2 The NAS panel rendered a strong opinion, which, in essence, confirmed that of the IPCC. The American Geophysical Union, the world’s largest organization of earth scientists, has also released a strong statement describing human-caused disruptions of Earth’s climate.3 Yet even in the face of this overwhelming scientific concensus, Bush administration spokespersons continued to contend that the uncertainties in climate projections and fossil fuel emissions are too great to warrant mandatory action to slow emissions.4 Even more politics. In May 2002, President Bush expressed disdain for a State Department report5 to the United Nations that pointed to a clear human role in the accumulation of heat-trapping gases and detailed the likely negative consequences of climate change; the president called it “a report put out by the bureaucracy.”6 In September 2002, the administration removed a section on climate change from the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) annual air pollution report,7 even though the climate issue had been discussed in the report in each of the preceding five years. Yet more politics. Then, in one well-documented case, the Bush administration blatantly tampered with the integrity of scientific analysis at a federal agency when, in June 2003, the White House tried to make a series of changes to the EPA’s draft Report on the Environment.8 A front-page article in the New York Times broke the news that White House officials tried to force the EPA to substantially alter the report’s section on climate change. The EPA report, which referenced the NAS review and other studies, stated that human activity is contributing significantly to climate change.9 That's internal politics. Interviews with current and former EPA staff, as well as an internal EPA memo reviewed for this report, revealed that the White House Council on Environmental Quality and the Office of Management and Budget demanded major amendments including: The deletion of a temperature record covering 1,000 years in order to, according to the EPA memo, emphasize “a recent, limited analysis [that] supports the administration’s favored message.” Was that the hockey stick? The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the White House itself—that confirmed human activity is contributing to climate change.11 The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature records funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute. The elimination of the summary statement—noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate change—that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.” According to the internal EPA memo, White House officials demanded so many qualifying words such as “potentially” and “may” that the result would have been to insert “uncertainty...where there is essentially none.”" Trump ... He (how ironic that his name should be a euphemism for 'fart') is just getting into his stride ... https://www.vox.com/science-and-heal...ging-explained "At the Environmental Protection Agency Just this week: The Trump administration froze new scientific grants at the Environmental Protection Agency. The EPA gives out billions of dollars every year to fund research and projects throughout the country. “These grants help states pay to track air pollution, say, or restore watersheds, or support researchers studying various environmental problems,” Vox’s Brad Plumer explains. It’s unclear how long the freeze will last, and if it pertains only to new grants or to existing grants as well. As ProPublica reports: One EPA employee aware of the freeze said he had never seen anything like it in nearly a decade with the agency. Hiring freezes happened, he said, but freezes on grants and contracts seemed extraordinary. The employee said the freeze appeared to be nationwide, and as of Monday night it was not clear for how long it would be in place. But either way, the agency seems to be a target of a Trump administration hammer. Axios found there may be $815 million in budget cuts coming for the EPA, for various “environment programs and management.” The Huffington Post also reported the EPA is banned from communicating via press releases or social media communications during this time, in another blow. On Tuesday, Reuters reported that the Trump Administration has ordered the EPA take down its climate change webpage. The EPA climate change page contains links to emissions data and explainers on the current consensus in the field. (And note: the EPA scientific integrity policy states “To operate an effective science and regulatory agency like the EPA, it is also essential that political or other officials not suppress or alter scientific findings.” It’s currently unclear if the climate change page removal will happen. On Wednesday, Inside EPA reported that Trump’s EPA team have agreed to “stand down” on the order to remove the webpage." My understanding is that the EPA was getting into areas outside the reasons for its existence. That and that it was taking actions on the basis of scientific reports which it had not and would not make available for public scrutiny. But its still politics. Surprisingly, scientific repression has even been true in Canada ... http://www.nature.com/news/nine-year...orship-1.19842 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? -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|