A Windows XP help forum. PCbanter

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

Go Back   Home » PCbanter forum » Windows 10 » Windows 10 Help Forum
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Intel CPU prices going up?



 
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #16  
Old October 21st 18, 11:49 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 21/10/2018 03:38, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:22:35 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:


(And, btw, ffs learn how to trim your replies)

On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote:

I pay little attention to opinion
pieces with no checkable theory or data.


Yet you link to them as evidence


I don't think so. There should always be checkable connection of some
kind. Can you give me an example?


I can remember at least two without further thought (munged so as not to
increase their search engine rankings any further) ...

On 16/10/2018 09:54, Eric Stevens wrote:

I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
h t t p s : / / w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m / 2 0 1 8 / 1 0

/ 1 4 / c l i m a t e - r e s e a r c h - i n - t h e - i p c c - w o n
d e r l a n d - w h a t - a r e - w e - r e a l l y - m e a s u r i n g
- a n d - w h y - a r e - w e - w a s t i n g - a l l - t h a t - m o n
e y /

Generally, w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m is a well-known
denialist blog site of little if any scientific credibility.
Particularly, there are problems with the article itself. To remind
you, this is what I said about it when first you linked to it ...

"An interesting article, but unfortunately for you it doesn't support
your claim that "Human induced climate change is very much open to
debate ... The article is actually about the problems of modelling
climate change ... There are other problems with the article as well -
much of it is based on old data, the sources quoted are dated 2001,
2002, 2006, and only the most recent being 2014, but then has been
updated to mention recent hurricanes in its final paragraphs to present
a (given where it was published, it is reasonable to assume)
*deliberately misleading* veneer of contemporaneity at variance with the
dates quoted above."

To which I would now add, that there are only two links of provenance
that I can see, a couple of others to definitions of technical terms,
but the bulk of the article is all his own assertions stated as though
they were peer-reviewed fact.

On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
You may be interested in:
h t t p s : / / m a i l c h i . m p / 0 7 1 c e f 9 7 0 0 7 1 / i n v

i t a t i o n - c l i m a t e - a n d - t h e - s o l a r - m a g n e t
i c - f i e l d - 1 7 2 8 3 3 ? e = 9 9 9 5 7 e 2 a f e

Again, G l o b a l W a r m i n g P o l i c y F o u n d a t i o n
is a well-known denialist website with no scientific standing whatsoever.

I haven't got a closed mind, it's you who can't seem to grasp the
differing orders of magnitude of the effect of CO2 and cosmic ray cloud
formation.


I'm obviously behind you. I (and probably everyone else) have no real
idea of the magnitude of the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.


Do not tar everyone else with your own ignorance and/or stupidity. There
were tentative figures given in the Wikipedia article and in the CLOUD
results.

Nor do they under any circumstances have a useful understanding of the
effect of clouds on global climate. To further complicate matters
there are a number of independent studies made from differing points
of view which suggest that if CO2 does have a measurable effect the
IPCC has overstated the effect by a factor of approximately 3.


Again opinion stated as thought it were fact, but without any links of
provenance to establish it as fact. Until you produce scientifically
worthwhile evidence everyone else is justly entitled to believe this is
a lie, especially given your record here of wasting everyone's time by
failing to check for yourself even the most basic information.

Even supposing Svensmark's ideas become widely accepted,
they're never going to account for more than a small fraction of the
observed warming, thus, to pursue this point any further is just wasting
everybody's time.


It's too soon to say 'never'. Nor would I say he is right but he does
seem to be heading in the right direction.


Again, tentative figures have already been given in the literature that
we have covered.

But you still haven't responded to the obvious upward trend in the
Berkeley graphs, and it's good correlation with CO2.


Say after me, 'correlation is not causation'. It could be temperature
causing CO2.


Again, you fail to grasp the most *basic* facts about planetary science
which five minutes with a good search engine and five more reading a
reputable article thus found would tell you. Say after me, "it's a
positive feedback mechanism, commonly known as a vicious circle!" -
increasing global temperature increases atmospheric CO2, increases
atmospheric CO2 increases global temperatu
CO2 = Global temperature

In that context you should have a look at the data from
the Vostok ice cores. Its not clear in the large time scale graphs but
when you look closer CO2 appears to lag temperature. See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...eat/co2lag.gif


As it happens, I have already looked at the data from the Vostok ice
cores in some detail. Seeing as you are using the usual denialist ploy
of linking to an image out of context, let me tell you that the cores go
back to almost 423,000 BP and cover the last *four* ice-ages, and there
is *nothing* there to help you, *nothing* that contradicts that
increasing CO2 increases temperature. Before the evolutions of humans
emitting CO2, there is overwhelming evidence that climate followed
Milankovitch cycles, which are temperature led, hence temperature
leading CO2 in the ice cores. However, by our activities releasing more
CO2 into the current Milankovitch cycle, we are exacerbating the vicious
circle by additionally pushing on it, 'forcing' it in climate-science
speak, from the CO2 side.

In that context you should see the work of Professor Humlum,
particularly the PDF which can be downloaded from
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1820892...emperature.pdf
For some reason that URL give TinyURL hiccups.


(Read the *whole* of this before replying)

My reading of just the abstract and the first few sections rang alarm
bells in my mind, as it should have done yours, because of the very
limited sources of CO2 data used:

"Only sites where samples are predominantly of well-mixed marine
boundary layer (MBL) air representative of a large volume of the
atmosphere are considered for the global CO2 data series (IPCC AR4,
2007). These key sites are typically at remote marine sea level
locations with prevailing onshore winds, to minimize the effects of
inland vegetation and industries. Measurements from sites at higher
altitude and from sites close to anthropogenic and natural sources and
sinks are excluded from the global CO2 estimate."

The absorption of radiation by CO2 is most significant in its effects at
higher levels in the atmosphere, at lower levels thermal conduction and
transport, and absorption by water vapour, are more significant ...

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

"The atmosphere near the surface is largely opaque to thermal radiation
(with important exceptions for "window" bands), and most heat loss from
the surface is by sensible heat and latent heat transport. Radiative
energy losses become increasingly important higher in the atmosphere,
largely because of the decreasing concentration of water vapor, an
important greenhouse gas
....
Within the region where radiative effects are important, the description
given by the idealized greenhouse model becomes realistic. Earth's
surface, warmed to a temperature around 255 K, radiates long-wavelength,
infrared heat in the range of 4–100 μm.[16] At these wavelengths,
greenhouse gases that were largely transparent to incoming solar
radiation are more absorbent.[16] Each layer of atmosphere with
greenhouses gases absorbs some of the heat being radiated upwards from
lower layers. It reradiates in all directions, both upwards and
downwards; in equilibrium (by definition) the same amount as it has
absorbed. This results in more warmth below. Increasing the
concentration of the gases increases the amount of absorption and
reradiation, and thereby further warms the layers and ultimately the
surface below.[14]

Greenhouse gases—including most diatomic gases with two different atoms
(such as carbon monoxide, CO) and all gases with three or more atoms are
able to absorb and emit infrared radiation. Though more than 99% of the
dry atmosphere is IR transparent (because the main constituents — N2,
O2, and Ar — are not able to directly absorb or emit infrared
radiation), intermolecular collisions cause the energy absorbed and
emitted by the greenhouse gases to be shared with the other,
non-IR-active, gases."

Given this, how can you possibly measure the effect of CO2 on
temperature by measuring its concentration only at the planet's surface?

Consequently, I performed some due diligence, which yet again you should
have performed for yourself ...

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

"Humlum is a member of the Norwegian organization Climate Realists,
which questions aspects of the scientific assessment of climate change
that have been expressed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC). He is active in Norwegian and Danish debate about science
on the issue, arguing that current climate change is mainly a natural
phenomenon.[1] Together with Jan-Erik Solheim and Kjel Stordahl, he
published the article "Identifying natural contributions to late
Holocene climate change" in Global and Planetary Change in 2011. The
article argues that changes in the sun's and moon's influence on the
earth may explain most of the historical and current climate change. The
theory in the article was opposed by several scientists.[5] He predicted
in 2013 that the climate would most likely become colder in the coming
10–15 years.[6]"

Note that this hasn't happened.

"In April 2018 he joined the Academic Advisory Council of the Global
Warming Policy Foundation, a London think tank that questions aspects of
the greenhouse warming theory.[7]"

So, affiliated to a well-known denialist organisation.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...21818113000908

"Comment on “The phase relation between atmospheric carbon dioxide and
global temperature” by Humlum, Stordahl and Solheim
Mark Richardson

Highlights

• Humlum et al.'s conclusion of natural CO2 rise since 1980 not
supported by the data
• Their use of differentiated time series removes long term contributions.
• This conclusion violates conservation of mass.
• Further analysis shows that the natural contribution is
indistinguishable from zero.
• The calculated human contribution is sufficient to explain the entire
rise.

Abstract

Humlum et al., 2013 conclude that the change in atmospheric CO2 from
January 1980 is natural, rather than human induced. However, their use
of differentiated time series removes long term trends such that the
presented results cannot support this conclusion. Using the same data
sources it is shown that this conclusion violates conservation of mass.
Furthermore it is determined that human emissions explain the entire
observed long term trend with a residual that is indistinguishable from
zero, and that the natural temperature-dependent effect identified by
Humlum et al. is an important contributor to the variability, but does
not explain any of the observed long term trend of + 1.62 ppm yr− 1."

My recollection is that it's freely available on the web.


You may be right but my understanding is that all that is reasonably
accessible is predigested.


https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/...es_format.html

Because they didn't print the reply received, or else say that they had
asked for an explanation, but hadn't received one, which a fair
appraisal would have done as a matter of course.


A number of people have made similar criticisms but as far as I am
aware there has been response from NASA or NOAA.


Again, you adopt the classic denialist ploy by stating assertions as
though they are facts but without giving *evidence* - if it is true
that "a number of people have made similar criticisms", provide some
provenance in the form of links, and, more generally, stop wasting
everyone's f*king time by failing to perform even the most rudimentary
due diligence on anything you say.

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


I said 'auditing' the data, not 'altering' it, see below ...


Sorry, I'm used to double-speak.


That confirms out of your own mouth to everyone here what the rest of us
already knew, that you are being irrational and looking for conspiracies
where there are none.

Auditing is the usual reason given
for altering. That applies to HadCRUT4 of which see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
or http://tinyurl.com/ycnjezt8


We've discussed this article before, and you have been unable to respond
to the several criticisms of it.

I think I have referred that to you before. A more dispassionate
criticism is given in
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06/...-and-may-data/
or http://tinyurl.com/hok3b3l which asks "Can Both GISS and HadCRUT4
be Correct?"


The same denialist misinformation ...

"Werner Brozek, Excerpted from Professor Robert Brown from Duke University"

The former is a known denialist (who seems to have died last Tuesday; at
least I presume it's him, there can't be many with that name). The
latter is indeed Prof of Physics at Duke ...

https://phy.duke.edu/people/robert-brown
https://webhome.phy.duke.edu/~rgb/

The above article is based on emails to the site from Prof Brown, but to
be sure we're getting it straight from the horse's mouth, let's examine
those directly. Search for rgbatduke in the following:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/...omment-2068737

rgbatduke, October 2, 2015 at 10:36 am

Although there are links to other posts in which he makes it clear that
he is a sceptic, I have no problems with this actual post down to and
until ...

"Two examples ... One is clearly the named structures themselves in the
climate ... The second is me." Let's deal with the second first, at it
is obviously totally specious to compare even metaphorically a
biological entity, with a mind and a will, to a determinist, albeit
chaotic and complex, system. He even says "The problem is that this
whole idea is just silly!"; it is, so why introduce such a specious
comparison, at all? It is clear that he introduces it purely as a
metaphor to denigrate climate modelling, there is no further reason than
that - to compare apples and pears like this is wholly unscientific.

As far as the first is concerned, it is indeed a major problematic area
for climate models. As he himself said previously when bemoaning the
lack of serious math on climate: "the math is insanely difficult even
when it is limited to toy systems — simple iterated maps, simple ODE* or
PDE* systems with simple boundary conditions" Yes, that is all true,
and everyone involved is aware of deficiencies in the data and the
modelling, but, because potentially this could be one of the most
serious issues facing humanity today, it is merely in our own best
interests of self-preservation to do the best we can with the tools
available at any given time, and if he, as his emails seem to imply, has
the mathematical capability to do better than so far has been done, why
not contribute his expertise to the effort rather than unhelpfully stand
on the sidelines picking holes in other people's work on a well-known
denialist site which may purport merely to devalue climate science in
particular, but inherently thereby devalues science in general,
including his own professional work! He even says at the end of the
second email discussed below, "This result just makes me itch to get my
hands on the data sets and code involved.", but, as much of it seems to
be freely available online, just how hard has he tried?!

Overall, wrt both points his behaviour comes across as being
unacceptably unprofessional, and IMV not what any professional
scientist, least of all a Prof, should be doing.

* As I presume, Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations.

rgbatduke, November 10, 2015 at 1:19 pm

The other article that you linked is mostly taken from this email. It
is very long and complex, and therefore there are risks in trying to
summarise it, but here goes ...

The different climate data series are published as 'anomalistic', in
other words, not as absolute data but as deviations from what is
expected, but immediately that introduces a problem of how to *define*
what is expected, including what reference period of time you use,
starting and finishing at what stage in natural decadal cycles such as
El Nino/La Nina, etc. Prof Brown plays with changing some of the
parameters to show that the different data series can be split into
different periods of time over which they can be made to agree for any
one of these periods, but only by choosing *different* parameters for
each period, if any *single* parameter is used to match the data over
any one given time period, then data for some other time period fits
much less well, even outside the error figures given for any individual
data set. Thus, if we are to take the error figures at face value, each
data set 'proves' that one or more others are 'wrong' over at least some
period of the entire data range, and vice versa.

As his main aim seems to be to cast doubt, rather than say anything of
lasting use or value, he does not make clear how he thinks the data as
it stands is best used, so it's left to others to guess. We can try to
do this, but of course we are not climate scientists, nevertheless ...

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had.../to:2015/trend

Judging from his own link above, the period of best fit is the satellite
era, as one might expect as it's the era for which we have the best
data, so the problem becomes that if we alter the start parameter of the
above backwards and remove the series that don't go that far back, what
happens to historical data?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/had.../to:2005/trend

Two of the three series fit within the stated errors, and third still
agrees quite closely, though outside stated errors, and all three show
an unambiguous, anomalous rise since 1850, hardly disastrous for a model
of AGW! Granted this is simplistic, but I have even less time than
climate scientists or Prof Brown, and noone's paying me to refute him,
still less your endless denialist twaddle.

Agreed and understood.


So why not snip the rest of it then, as I have done?

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


No I won't, it's just another denialist front organisation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global...icy_Foundation

"The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF) is a think tank in the
United Kingdom, whose stated aims are to challenge "extremely damaging
and harmful policies" envisaged by governments to mitigate anthropogenic
global warming.[3][4] While their position is that the science of global
warming or climate change is "not yet settled," the GWPF claims that its
membership comes from a broad spectrum ranging from "the IPCC position
through agnosticism to outright scepticism."[1] The GWPF as well as some
of its prominent members have been characterized as promoting climate
change denial.[5][6]

In 2014, when the Charity Commission ruled that the GWPF had breached
rules on impartiality, a non-charitable organisation called the "Global
Warming Policy Forum" or "GWPF" was created as a wholly owned
subsidiary, to do lobbying that a charity could not. The GWPF website
carries an array of articles "sceptical" of scientific findings of
anthropogenic global warming and its impacts.

You seem to have habit of shooting the messenger before reading the
message. Its the message which matters.


Not if the messenger is a double agent.

Funding sources

Because it is registered as a charity, the GWPF is not legally required
to report its sources of funding,[15] and Peiser has declined to reveal
its funding sources, citing privacy concerns. Peiser said GWPF does not
receive funding "from people with links to energy companies or from the
companies themselves."[16] The foundation has rejected freedom of
information (FoI) requests to disclose its funding sources on at least
four different occasions. The judge ruling on the latest FoI request,
Alison McKenna, said that the GWPF was not sufficiently influential to
merit forcing them to disclose the source of the £50,000 that was
originally provided to establish the organization.[17]

Bob Ward, the policy and communications director at the Grantham
Research Institute on Climate Change and the Environment at the London
School of Economics, commented:

"These [FoI] documents expose once again the double standards promoted
by ... the GWPF, who demand absolute transparency from everybody except
themselves ... The GWPF was the most strident critic during the
'Climategate' row of the standards of transparency practised by the
University of East Anglia, yet it simply refuses to disclose basic
information about its own secretive operations, including the identity
of its funders." [15]

According to a press release on the organization's website, GWPF "is
funded entirely by voluntary donations from a number of private
individuals and charitable trusts. In order to make clear its complete
independence, it does not accept gifts from either energy companies or
anyone with a significant interest in an energy company."[4] Annual
membership contributions are "a minimum of £100".[18] In accounts filed
at the beginning of 2011 with the Charities Commission and at Companies
House, it was revealed that only £8,168 of the £503,302 the Foundation
received as income, from its founding in November 2009 until the end of
July 2010, came from membership contributions.[19] In response to the
accounts, Bob Ward commented that "Its income suggests that it only has
about 80 members, which means that it is a fringe group promoting the
interests of a very small number of politically motivated
campaigners."[19] Similarly, based on membership fees reported for the
year ending 31 July 2012, it appears that GWPF had no more than 120
members at that time.[20]

In March 2012, The Guardian revealed that it had uncovered emails in
which Michael Hintze, founder of the hedge fund CQS and a major donor to
the UK Conservative Party, disclosed having donated to GWPF; the
previous October, Hintze had been at the center of a funding scandal
that led to the resignation of then-Secretary of State for Defence Liam
Fox and the dismissal of Hintze's then-charity adviser, Oliver Hylton.[21]

Chris Huhne, former UK Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change
attacked Lord Lawson's influential climate sceptic think-tank.[15]"

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


An accurate description.


Because ...

Again, see the relative effects of CO2 and cosmic rays. CO2 has an
order of magnitude greater effect on global temperatures than can cosmic
rays. We can do something about CO2 levels, it will a long and
difficult road, economically, politically, and perhaps socially, but we
can do something about them. We can't do anything about cosmic rays.
So where should we spend the bulk of our resources? Certainly not on
cosmic rays.


See my comment above about the magnitude of the effect of CO2.


I've shown above that your comment showed a lamentable lack of
understanding of how the planet actually works.

Answer: Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project


They have obviously realised at last that they need to clean up at least
their image, if not yet their act.


That was my first conclusion also. However they may be hoping to get
Stanford to carry out climate research in areas which will not attract
conventional funding.


Perhaps, only time will tell.
Ads
  #17  
Old October 22nd 18, 12:17 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:33:56 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 21/10/2018 02:48, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Roger Blake wrote:

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


It is the denialists who cannot base their beliefs on science, as may
shown simply by the fact that throughout the entirety of this thread and
elsewhere neither Eric nor any other denialist has managed to produce
any provenance for their beliefs that is able to pass even the most
cursory rational investigation.


I'm sure what you mean by 'provenance' but I suspect it means
approval by a person or persons on the approved list. That's a broad
and woolly accusation typical of a scholastic argument and of not much
relevance when discussing science. As examples of why I do not
unreservedly accept the IPCC CO2 causes global warming argument In
this thread I have cited links to various sources, all of which
contain sufficient information to enable them to be tracked back to
the original data.


https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr


You will find more info at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/


Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png
Which model would you like to rely upon?


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


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



Improved sensors in the year 2000 make no difference to data gathered
in 1940. Various documents have been published on the quality of
sensor installations with the first significant publication being

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...t_spring09.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/p2rz7kf


Here is a later one
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...rature-trends/
or http://tinyurl.com/y9bb32tq




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


Whereas denialists such as yourself just make these sweeping claims
without any scientific provenance whatsoever, and are then abusive,
when, unsurprisingly, no-one believes you!


Here you show why you and peple like me will never agree. First you
are again relying on 'provenance' rather than the actual facts of the
situation. Second you say "no-one believes you!" when the true test is
whether or not anyone confirms that the facts are as described and are
correct. By falling back on belief you are turning this into a
quasi-religious argument where following the creed is of fundamental
importance.


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


Nor does CO2. :-)


Smiley or not, that has been proven to be a lie in so many different
ways, most convincingly of all by the original 1850s experiments and the
Berkeley results, that the fact that you are now obviously lying proves
that you've lost the rational argument.


I'm not lying, whether obviously or not.

First the CO2 causes global warming relies on a feedback mechanism
employing water vapour. There are strong grounds for concluding that
the originators of this theory selected the wrong mathematical model
for the feed back and also have made an error in its application. It
is estimated that the error from this cause is that the heating effect
is exagerated by a factor of between 2 and 3. That there is an error
of this magnitude appears to have been confirmed by first-principle
analysis of the data.

Second the physical model of the feed back requires that a hotspot
should be formed in the troposphere over the tropics. No such hot spot
has been observed.

I suppose that both of these will be news to you, but that,s what
happens you fail to keep an eye on what is happening in the field.

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

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


Yep. All those scientists who work to show that anthropogenic CO2
causes global warming work for free.


Yes they *do*, as can be proven by the sort of minimal investigation
which you could and should have done yourself throughout this entire
thread, if only to save you making a **** of yourself, and in this
particular case especially as someone else has *already* pointed this
out previously in this same thread ...

http://ipcc.ch/index.htm (my emphasis)


Better still, you should read the current IPCC budget document
http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager...and_budget.pdf


"Assessments of climate change by the IPCC, drawing on the work of
hundreds of scientists from all over the world, enable policymakers at
all levels of government to take sound, evidence-based decisions. They
represent extraordinary value as the authors volunteer their time and
expertise. The running costs of the Secretariat, including the
organization of meetings and travel costs of delegates from developing
countries and countries with economies in transition, are covered
through the IPCC Trust Fund."

So the academics who are members of the IPCC *do* give their time for
free, in the sense they are not paid up IPCC employees, rather their
time is *donated* by their real employers, which are academic or
scientific institutions such as universities, government departments, etc.


.... which real employers no doubt pay their employees who would suffer
if IPCC global warming became unimportant.

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

Sorry, but you're being played.


Yes, it's a wonder that they can't feel their strings being pulled.


It reminds me of the old Punch cartoon 'They both think they are
saying 'am, sir".
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #18  
Old October 22nd 18, 12:25 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 911
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:13:53 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-21 04:55, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 23:37:03 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-20 22:41, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:14:23 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-19 23:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
I was merely explaining my mathematical background.
[...]

Does that include chaos theory and fractals?

Nope. I was too early for that but I have read some of the
introductory materials by Lorenz and Poincarre. But that was a long
time ago.

Ah, that explains why you believe that statistical analysis is enough to
refute claims of anthropogenic global warming.


No! Nonsense! I don't believe that at all. Quite the reverse in fact.
From what I have read I suspect some quite shonky statistical analysis
has been used to support claims of anthropogenic global warming. I
don't know enough to properly reach that conclusion myself the poor
quality of statistics in much work related to climate study has been
heavily criticised by people who are qualified to do so. e.g.
McKittrick, and Wegman. See
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wegman_Report

I not only read "introductory materials", I constructed and ran models
of simple chaotic systems as described in some of the texts. I did so
because hands-on is the only way to understand what the math means [1].
(Sidebar: one of the models produced a lovely parabola, randomly placed
spot by randomly placed spot, as the system cycled through its
states.the parabola began to emerge at around 500 iterations, but was
still visibly gappy after 5,000.)


I got that far on a computer many years, more as entertainment than
anything else.

Take-away 1: Any system of three or more entities that mutually
influence each other is a chaotic system.

Take-away 2: One can compute any given state of such a system directly
from its initial state at T(0). You have to calculate its state at T(1),
T(2), T(3),... T(N-2), T(N-1). (That is, the system cannot be described
by a set of equations such that its state at T(N) is function of N.)

Take-away 3: The systems that matter most to us human beings are mostly
chaotic. The weather. The climate. The economy. The ecosystems that
supply us with food. The social systems that enable us to live decent
lives. Our health. Traffic on motorways. And so on.


Yep. Which causes some people to ask why it is thought possible to
model climate.

Footnote [1]: A set of numbers is meaningless without a context. Suppose
I tell you that the median score on a school test was 76 correct out of
one hundred. Is that good or bad or somewhere in between? How would you
decide? Since you claim you are able "check the raw data", you should be
able to answer those questions with no trouble at all.

THats meaningless on its own.


Exactly. So why do you claim the ability to asses the value of raw
climate data?


Forgive me, but I thought it was the people who say they can detect
the hand of man in global warming who claim they can assess the value
of what raw climate data we have. Surely the verification of this
claim is fundamental to the acceptance of their conclusions.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens
  #19  
Old October 22nd 18, 01:06 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Java Jive
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 391
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 22/10/2018 00:17, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:33:56 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 21/10/2018 02:48, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Roger Blake wrote:

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


It is the denialists who cannot base their beliefs on science, as may
shown simply by the fact that throughout the entirety of this thread and
elsewhere neither Eric nor any other denialist has managed to produce
any provenance for their beliefs that is able to pass even the most
cursory rational investigation.


I'm sure what you mean by 'provenance' but I suspect it means
approval by a person or persons on the approved list.


No, there is no such thing as an 'approved list'. It means work that
has been submitted for, accepted for, and passed peer-review by other
scientists knowledgeable in the field in question, which here means
other climate scientists. Alternatively, articles in such places as
Wikipedia that review, link to, and quote from such work, are acceptable
as long the article is obviously trying to be accurate and fair (as, in
fact, most Wikipedia articles that I've ever read are, the most likely
exceptions being ones about politicians that sometimes get 'edited' by
people who turn out to be their own staff).

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr

You will find more info at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
and
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...dit-by-mclean/


Time wasting #1: You've been told several times already that
denialist blog sites such as w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m have
no scientific provenance whatsoever, less even than I commenting here,
because I supply links of scientific provenance to support what I say,
they by and large do not; anybody can post anything they like on them,
as long as the denialist 'editor' allows. The fact that you persist in
linking to such garbage despite this being explained to you many times
in several different ways over the course of this thread shows that some
or all of the following are true:
You have F*k all understanding of the scientific process.
You have f*k all understanding of planetary science.
You hold irrational quasi-religious beliefs about climate science.
You have a vested, possibly monetary interest in climate denialism.
You have a vested, possibly monetary interest in that website.
You take a juvenile perverse delight in wasting other people's time.

Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-conte...-thru-2013.png
Which model would you like to rely upon?


Time wasting #2: You have already been told that linking to an image
out of context is unscientific.

Time wasting #3: Also, you have failed again to perform due diligence:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/ske...oy_Spencer.htm

"Other professional affiliations: Dr. Spencer is on the board of
directors of the George C. Marshall Institute, a right-wing conservative
think tank on scientific issues and public policy. He listed as an
expert for the Heartland Institute, a libertarian American public policy
think tank. Dr. Spencer is also listed as an expert by the
International Climate and Environmental Change Assessment Project
(ICECAP), a global warming "skeptic" organization"

See also the many, many climate 'myths' originating from him that are
listed and debunked on that page, myth by myth.

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


Time wasting #4: As #1.

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


Time wasting #5: Already flogged to death - has been the subject of
some controversy, but even if true, effects are too small to explain
current warming.

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...t_spring09.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/p2rz7kf


Time wasting #6: As #1.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/...rature-trends/
or http://tinyurl.com/y9bb32tq


Time wasting #7: As #1.

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


Whereas denialists such as yourself just make these sweeping claims
without any scientific provenance whatsoever, and are then abusive,
when, unsurprisingly, no-one believes you!


Here you show why you and peple like me will never agree. First you
are again relying on 'provenance' rather than the actual facts of the
situation.


Again, you prove that you know f*k all about the scientific method. The
facts are determined by scientific provenance, without that they are not
facts.

Second you say "no-one believes you!" when the true test is
whether or not anyone confirms that the facts are as described and are
correct.


Which is done by scientific provenance, not by denialists endlessly
asserting the same lies apparently in the belief that if they repeat the
same false magic incantations often enough, Harry Potter will make them
come true.

By falling back on belief you are turning this into a
quasi-religious argument where following the creed is of fundamental
importance.


That's *exactly* what *you* are doing - I've linked to scientific
provenance for everything I've claimed, you've linked mostly to
denialist sites of f*k all scientific provenance, and the few sites of
any provenance you have managed to find make exaggerated claims which
have not found wider scientific acceptance.

Nor does CO2. :-)


Smiley or not, that has been proven to be a lie in so many different
ways, most convincingly of all by the original 1850s experiments and the
Berkeley results, that the fact that you are now obviously lying proves
that you've lost the rational argument.


I'm not lying, whether obviously or not.


If you wish to avoid the accusation, stop stating assertions as though
they were facts while failing to provide provenance to establish them as
facts, as you do yet again below.

First the CO2 causes global warming relies on a feedback mechanism
employing water vapour. There are strong grounds for concluding that
the originators of this theory selected the wrong mathematical model
for the feed back and also have made an error in its application. It
is estimated that the error from this cause is that the heating effect
is exagerated by a factor of between 2 and 3. That there is an error
of this magnitude appears to have been confirmed by first-principle
analysis of the data.


Again, denialist assertions stated as though they are fact but with no
scientific provenance.

Second the physical model of the feed back requires that a hotspot
should be formed in the troposphere over the tropics. No such hot spot
has been observed.


Again, denialist assertions stated as though they are fact but with no
scientific provenance.

Yes they *do*, as can be proven by the sort of minimal investigation
which you could and should have done yourself throughout this entire
thread, if only to save you making a **** of yourself, and in this
particular case especially as someone else has *already* pointed this
out previously in this same thread ...

http://ipcc.ch/index.htm (my emphasis)


Better still, you should read the current IPCC budget document
http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager...and_budget.pdf


Time wasting #8: By providing a link with no explanation you are
apparently expecting others either to be psychic or to read through an
entire document trying to find whatever it is that you think we ought to
notice. At my last employment before I retired, my employer was
charging my time out at around £70 an hour, and when choosing my pension
I noted that the cost of living had about doubled in 25 years, which
would inflate that figure to say, about, £115 an hour. Perhaps if I
could find a way of charging denialists like yourself by hour for the
time it takes to refute you, you'd stop wasting so much of everyone's time.

"Assessments of climate change by the IPCC, drawing on the work of
hundreds of scientists from all over the world, enable policymakers at
all levels of government to take sound, evidence-based decisions. They
represent extraordinary value as the authors volunteer their time and
expertise. The running costs of the Secretariat, including the
organization of meetings and travel costs of delegates from developing
countries and countries with economies in transition, are covered
through the IPCC Trust Fund."

So the academics who are members of the IPCC *do* give their time for
free, in the sense they are not paid up IPCC employees, rather their
time is *donated* by their real employers, which are academic or
scientific institutions such as universities, government departments, etc.


... which real employers no doubt pay their employees


One would hope so, after all, it's the usual situation when one is employed.

who would suffer
if IPCC global warming became unimportant.


They'd just get on with their other research or get another job in a
different field.

It reminds me of the old Punch cartoon 'They both think they are
saying 'am, sir".


I don't recall that, you will have to find a link.

  #20  
Old October 22nd 18, 07:48 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 20/10/2018 03:40, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 15:20:38 +0100, Chris wrote:

[ re-sending this as messed up the follow-ups ]

On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.


If something is proved then no counterbalancing is required. Just like
you don't need a flat-earther involved when discussing circumnavigating
the globe. The media are responsible for false equivalence by always
trying to show 'balance' when there isn't any.


You are misguided if you equate flatearthers with the dissatisfaction
with IPCC global warming theory.


Not according to media regulators or 200 professional scientific
organisations. Flatearthers - although somewhat tongue-in-cheek these
days - use the same techniques as climate change deniers to discount the
evidence for a global Earth.

In the UK we have a media regulator which requires outlets which present
and discuss the news to abide by the rules. The BBC is no different to
any other outlet in the UK be it online, TV or on print. In the above
case the BBC was rightly castigated for allow Nigel Lawson (a known
climate change denier and chairman of the rather shady GWPF) an
unchallenged voice on the Today programme.


I am not sure whether I should be ammused or saddened at your apparent
need to attach descriptors (for guidance?) to a selected group of the
nouns you employ. You should be aware that it makes no difference to
the merits (or otherwise) of what they say, the quality of which you
should assess from first principles.


Of course it does. It does for you when discounting the science because
they're desperate for funding.

If a vociferous advocate of a particular position is not absolutely
crystal clear of their funding then you have got assume they have a
vested interest and treat their 'evidence' somewhat carefully.


--- snip ---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


And yet you're quite happy to throw away evidence as being 'political'
rather than actually engaging with it.


Somebody's opinion is not evidence, especially whan it is quoted in a
digested form by a second person for publication in a third parson'ss
news media.


When have I provided someone's opinion as evidence? Whereas you claim
that the fact that 200 scientific organisation all agree with the
climate theory is 'politics'. It's just an inconvenience for you, so
you'd rather ignore it than engage with actual reason.

It is quite obvious that all the climate change denial fora are funded
by the fossil fuel industry and although there is some research
challenging the consensus the vast, vast majority of publicly funded
science is behind and supports the model of human-induced climate change
via the emission of greenhouse gases. Science requires there to be
dissenting voices to make sure the science is sound. Evolution and the
Big Bang were aggressively challenged for a long time before being
accepted, this made the theories stronger and more accurate.

Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.

_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate

research
is properly peer reviewed.

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

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


If the science was bulletproof there'd be no problem in publishing it.
Plenty of unpopular/challenging research is published in peer-reviewed
journals all the time. It is my observation that the denialists prefer
not to publish in scientific journals because it is hard. Books are
easier to publish and make more money...


You seem unaware of how hard it is for the people you call denialists
to get published in most of the mainstream journals. Horror stories
abound and if true are quite sufficient to explain why you see so
little of their work.


And you seem to be unaware of how hard it is to publish *anything* in
scientific journals. Papers go through multiple rounds of rejection,
revision and review meaning that by the time a paper is finally
published it may have been submitted to several journals and taken over
a year.

This article highlights this, but misses the time and effort to find a
journal that finally accepts it.
https://www.nature.com/news/does-it-...search-1.19320


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

I'm not just writing for your benefit.

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

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

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

Read the source

http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

A scientists publication record in isolation gives no indication of its
influence or importance.


Einstein anybody?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...urnal_articles

You're missing the point. Without the classification and notes column it
would be very hard to work out which papers are the most significant.
Not everything Einstein published was significant.


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


You know that psychology is in the middle of a huge crisis down to
misinterpretation of data and overuse of bad statistical practices, right?
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/349/6251/aac4716

If that's your basis for statistical understanding, I recommend you
re-visit modern statistics.


That's ethics, and the criticism applies just as much to medical
research and science in general. Climate research is not exempt.


No it's statistical data analysis. I'm not saying climate research is
exempt, I'm saying that if your understanding of statistics comes from a
1st year undergrad psychology course you may not grasp the ins-and-outs
of statistical modelling as used in climate research.

Having said that climate research, is under a lot of scrutiny so
wouldn't get away with anything like the problems currently facing
psychology.

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

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

How do you explain the changes shown in

https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/

Two things:
1) the graphs are a mixture US only data or global data. Unsurprisingly
they show different things


As far as I can tell, they are all global data with the exception of
the second graph which is labeled Northern Hemisphere. I am surprised
you didn't look.


There are 18 charts on that link. 11 are for the US, 5 are global and 2
are ambiguous.


The use of the work 'fake' is utterly wrong. Modelled or 'imputed' data
is perfectly valid and used across all fields of science - with one
important caveat that hte assumed model is correct. Given the site
doesn't challenge that implies they don't understand what they're
talking about.


They were writing for readers who take for granted that 'the map is
not the territory'.

Plus, it's 50% of 'fake' data is wrong. It's more like 80% - the idiot
forgot the oceans. Except it's not. We now have swathes of satellites
and temperature buoys measuring sea temperatures.


Its not the 'idiot' who forgot it. It may be the persons who created
the various graphs.


The 50% comment is in the text not the graphs. Did you even look at the
page?


For what it is worth, the Russians have never accepted the CO2 based
IPCC theory but increasingly strongly have been pointing their finger
at the sun.


I wonder why that would be? Nothing to do with the fact that they're
massive producers/exporters of coal, oil and gas. Nope, nothing to do
with that at all!

--- snip ---


It's notable you snipped a very direct question to you. I'll repost it
again. I'd be genuinely interested in your response.

Frankly, is there anything that would change your mind regarding
human-induced climate change? What piece of evidence would convince you?

  #21  
Old October 22nd 18, 08:10 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 22/10/2018 00:17, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:33:56 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 21/10/2018 02:48, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:
The balance of power and money is massively in favour of the fossil fuel
industry who have a vested ibterest in sowing doubt wherever they can.

Yep. All those scientists who work to show that anthropogenic CO2
causes global warming work for free.


It wouldn't make a difference to you even if they did.

Yes they *do*, as can be proven by the sort of minimal investigation
which you could and should have done yourself throughout this entire
thread, if only to save you making a **** of yourself, and in this
particular case especially as someone else has *already* pointed this
out previously in this same thread ...

http://ipcc.ch/index.htm (my emphasis)


Better still, you should read the current IPCC budget document
http://www.ipcc.ch/apps/eventmanager...and_budget.pdf


AH, thanks for that. I was looking for it the other day.

What's your point?

It shows that the IPCC is stunningly cheap:
~5m swiss francs per year over the last 30 years (CHF153m total). That's
less than 90k per each of the 57 countries that fund it. Plus, there was
a 40% *under*spend last year. That's effectively free.

The oil lobby spends more than that in *TWO YEARS* of US government
lobbying. That's 15 times more than the whole of the IPCC.
https://www.opensecrets.org/lobby/in...ent.php?id=E01

As you've said, follow the money.
  #22  
Old October 22nd 18, 08:43 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

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

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

On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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


Ha! What? Like one-sided blog posts? Watts' site is all opinion.

  #23  
Old October 22nd 18, 09:25 PM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10
Chris
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 832
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On 21/10/2018 03:38, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:22:35 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:
But you still haven't responded to the obvious upward trend in the
Berkeley graphs, and it's good correlation with CO2.


Say after me, 'correlation is not causation'. It could be temperature
causing CO2. In that context you should have a look at the data from
the Vostok ice cores. Its not clear in the large time scale graphs but
when you look closer CO2 appears to lag temperature. See
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...eat/co2lag.gif


That figure is nonsensical. Why is the temperature rage 1.95-2.25 and
what does it mean? Why is the date range some obscure time:
240,000-235,000 years before present? THat's a small window in a period
a long time ago. What's the relevance to now? Seems very cherrypicked.
There are no errors on lines to be able to assess the accuracy. Also the
'lag' is only observable for half the time period. All very vague with
no methodological substance.

BTW the whole field of climate research is based on correlations. We
can't go back in time, modify the conditions on Earth and see the
effects. We're stuck with looking back on the data, making inferences
and seeing what fits best. It won't ever be perfect. CO2 is by far the
best theory that matches the data.

In that context you should see the work of Professor Humlum,
particularly the PDF which can be downloaded from
http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/1820892...emperature.pdf


This is the article's proper URL:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...21818112001658

And you can see from that URL, there have been two comments on that
paper. Comments are where other scientists write rebuttals to a
published article in the same journal, for the readership to see. Both
comments report fundamental flaws in the Humlum et al paper. Effectively
both say there is no data supporting natural CO2 effect. Ordinarily, the
journal also gives the original authors a chance to respond. As there's
no response, it is fair to assume that Humlum isn't challenging the
rebuttals.

I prefer it when you present data rather than opinion. It's easier to
discuss.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

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

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






All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:11 PM.


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