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 |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:58:39 -0400, Wolf K
wrote: On 2018-10-17 00:14, Eric Stevens wrote: [...] 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. [...] It's about heat transported by ocean currents. The Atlantic Conveyor moves warm water from the (sub-)tropics in the northern/northeastern Atlantic. Since it floats on top of the colder water there, that cold water subsides, and flows south (more or less) well below the surface. The Conveyor is part of the worldwide circulation/transport of heat by ocean currents. Here's a link that both explains the system, and presents recent attempts to understand the system better: https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-atla...-rapid-project Background as I have distilled it from many decades of reading science journals and magazines: As you know, water has a high specific heat, so even slight changes in this system of warm and cold ocean currents can have large effects on the circulation of air above the oceans, ie, the weather. See El Nino and El Nina. If the Conveyor changes more than X (where X is at best a rough estimate at this time), the climate of the northern Atlantic will change. I.e., the climate from Greenland to Norway will change. The ocean currents are obviously one of the factors driving the annual weather cycles ("the climate"). The climate as a whole is a network of feedback loops. Such networks are "chaotic systems". They cycle around a sequence of state changes (eg, the seasonal changes of weather in your locality) with some variability in each cycle. If some factor in the system changes beyond some limit, the whole system tips into a new cycle of state changes. The unknowns are the triggering factors and their roles in the feedback loops, and thus the rate of change into a new cycle of changes. The "tipping point" could be on the order of a few seconds to many thousands of years. The earliest climate models (1970s) suggested that climate could change as quickly as about 100 years, depending on which factors changed and by how much. Since these models did a good job of "retrodicting" (matching known climate changes), these results created a puzzle. That drove the creation of more powerful models, which have merely refined these results: it is in fact possible for the climate to change very rapidly. Since then, minor climate changes (such as the Little Ice Age of the late Middle Ages) have shown that climate can change very quickly indeed. Finer grained data from sediments and rocks suggest that climate has occasionally tipped quite rapidly in the past, probably on the order of a thousand years or so. Statistics is not the best tool for analysing and understanding chaotic systems like the weather and climate. That's why even eminent statisticians are poor guides to understanding weather and climate. NB that before the advent of supercomputers, weather prediction was statistical, and notoriously unreliable beyond a short time frame, which in Great Britain was approximately 1/2 a day (as I recall only too well from my childhood there). Supercomputers enable the modelling of multiple feedback loops one state-change at a time: the current state is the input for calculating the next state. This has improved weather prediction so that it's reliable for up to two or three days here, and pretty good for up to a week or so. Even so, every so often the prediction is badly off: some factor exceeds some limit, and instead of a shower we get a thunderstorm. Basically, any system of feedbacks between three or more entities is chaotic. See the Three Body Problem for a very old example. BTW, life itself is a driver of weather, and in the long run of climate. Eg, ground cover affects the rate of water loss in the soils, and so affects the hydrologic cycle that we call "rain." Best, -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:27 +0100, Java Jive
wrote: 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. If you can cite secondary sources so then can I :-). See https://www.skepticalscience.com/cer...ming-basic.htm "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step" https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2 "Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation of neutral molecules. Under atmospheric conditions the growth from ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth. We performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes 20?nm and find good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of importance not just in Earth’s present day atmosphere for the growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by increased supernova activity." .... a second step. Don't be daft, this isn't about tax. No, but he may, or may not, have been taking the ****. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 10/15/2018 9:13 PM, Yousuf Khan wrote:
... 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound ..... I think Intel is reconfiguring most of their production lines from 14nm to the next fabrication process, and hence the shortage of 14nm products. -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 10/16/2018 4:01 AM, Paul wrote:
... This is a table from a recent Anandtech article announcing the 9900K. 22nm 14/14+ 14++ Transistor fin pitch 60 42 42 Transistor gate pitch 90 70 84--- relaxed pitch Interconnect pitch 80 52 52 Transistor fin height 34 42 42 Some nodes are done for power saving, some are done for max_clock (performance). The above doesn't suggest a lot of radical change. Princopled Technology claimed that Intel i9-9900K was about 12% faster than the top AMD Ryzen 2700X CPU. Principled Technologies retested the Core i9-9900K: 12% faster but 66% pricier than Ryzen 2700X https://www.dvhardware.net/article69724.html Those Intel i9-9900K vs Ryzen 2700X Benchmarks Look Much Worse Now https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev.../#2546fb7f108e -- @~@ Remain silent! Drink, Blink, Stretch! Live long and prosper!! / v \ Simplicity is Beauty! /( _ )\ May the Force and farces be with you! ^ ^ (x86_64 Ubuntu 9.10) Linux 2.6.39.3 不借貸! 不詐騙! 不*錢! 不援交! 不打交! 不打劫! 不自殺! 不求神! 請考慮綜援 (CSSA): http://www.swd.gov.hk/tc/index/site_...sub_addressesa |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
Mr. Man-wai Chang wrote:
On 10/16/2018 4:01 AM, Paul wrote: ... This is a table from a recent Anandtech article announcing the 9900K. 22nm 14/14+ 14++ Transistor fin pitch 60 42 42 Transistor gate pitch 90 70 84--- relaxed pitch Interconnect pitch 80 52 52 Transistor fin height 34 42 42 Some nodes are done for power saving, some are done for max_clock (performance). The above doesn't suggest a lot of radical change. Princopled Technology claimed that Intel i9-9900K was about 12% faster than the top AMD Ryzen 2700X CPU. Principled Technologies retested the Core i9-9900K: 12% faster but 66% pricier than Ryzen 2700X https://www.dvhardware.net/article69724.html Those Intel i9-9900K vs Ryzen 2700X Benchmarks Look Much Worse Now https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev.../#2546fb7f108e They'll still sell a few. It's only $500. The Ryzen 2700X is $300. And it will do Turbo on two cores. So you can run a SuperPI bench for a bar bet. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 (8C 16T) Core i9 9900K 5.0 5.0 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.7 4.7 Paul |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: This kind of stuff is garbage. I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far. I refer you again to: http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/ The Berkely project was set up because of the general distrust of publically available data. I think they have leaned most heavily on the NOAA data but they have been throug whatever they use most carefully. Many people regard them as having the best generally available data. The 'best generally available data' doesn't support *anything* that you've claimed here, so why do you persist in posting OT misinformation unsupported by any scientific provenance? It can only be because it's a religion to you. Take your f*king OT denialist sh*te elsewhere. I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the media. That depends on the media. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with more mainstream media. I listen regularly to BBC World Service radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our webpage!" That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for selecting only one side of the argument. The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that ‘as journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of the evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing in terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing the public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over the next couple of hundred years.’ Roger Mosey, Director of Sport, said that in his former job as head of TV News, he had been lobbied by scientists ‘about what they thought was a disproportionate number of people denying climate change getting on our airwaves and being part of a balanced discussion – because they believe, absolutely sincerely, that climate change is now scientific fact.' The BBC has held a high-level seminar with some of the best scientific experts, and has come to the view that the weight of evidence no longer justifies equal space being given to the opponents of the consensus. But these dissenters (or even sceptics) will still be heard, as they should, because it is not the BBC’s role to close down this debate. They cannot be simply dismissed as ‘flat-earthers’ or ‘deniers’, who ‘should not be given a platform’ by the BBC. Impartiality always requires a breadth of view: for as long as minority opinions are coherently and honestly expressed, the BBC must give them appropriate space. ‘Bias by elimination’ is even more offensive today than it was in 1926. The BBC has many public purposes of both ambition and merit – but joining campaigns to save the planet is not one of them. The BBC’s best contribution is to increase public awareness of the issues and possible solutions through impartial and accurate programming. Acceptance of a basic scientific consensus only sharpens the need for hawk-eyed scrutiny of the arguments surrounding both causation and solution. ..." 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? The discussions tend to be biased Well I never, that's a surprise :-) but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source as any to track down mis- information Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed. _Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research is properly peer reviewed. AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources. Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against so-called denialists or sceptics. Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here. 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. Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it ever existed. Numeracy is not your strong point. But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's right, and you're wrong. The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El Nino superimposed on the long term trend. Since then warming as recommenced apace, as shown by the link above. How are your statistics? My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty. Mine are my mathematical weak point. Ah! Why am I not surprised? Apart from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me. Then you should know better than to claim ... Apart from that, I don't agree with you about the pause. The whole situation has been confused by two El Ninos with a possible third coming up. Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation with CO2 levels. Evidence? Published scientific literature. An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence. I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points of 30 years of reading on the subject. It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had a political or personal agenda. 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. The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our current climate change phenomenon. How has it been distorted? I agree, I should have written discounted. It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem poorly familiar with). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]" Hoo! That's a put down. No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the *entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming. 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? In short, no! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change "Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of those studies." Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?! If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all persons and organizations who finate climate research. It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil. Many are. Who? All the signatories to the Paris Agreement. That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to reduce their standard of living. They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The two are not necessarily linked. There are few better. At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I agree. You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one conclusion. It cannot be fudged. If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged? That's a loaded question. As are all your arguments. I have never said that HadCRUT data has been fudged, although the Climategate emails suggest very strongly that they have been. What I have done is provide a link to an article which suggests that the standard of HadCRUT's data is highly suspect. Ah, I knew we'd get to Climategate sooner or later, after all, it's the denialists' favourite weapon of mass distraction. Unfortunately for you, there have been two independent investigations which cleared the scientists involved of any intention to deceive. See appended. I agree, statistics can be used to bamboozle the ignorant. However this aspect started with my mention of a paper involving Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr McKitrick is one of the last people likely to be mislead by dubious statistics. He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his ramblings. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says. No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams. Are you referring to the upwelling at the equator? Well, that does happen as a result of the coriolos effect. You will see a small diagram of this in fig 3 of http://www.marbef.org/wiki/ocean_circulation Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to finding evidence of warming. Read paras 1 and 2 of https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is already a given. It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm this. You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land. Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC. Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to acceptance of what the science is telling us ... [order changed to restore clarity of argument] That's politics again. THat's still politics and nothing much to with science. More politics. Even more politics. Yet more politics. That's internal politics. Following on from my last sentence above, I gave numerous examples (now snipped in the interests of brevity) that demonstrated that politicians, particularly US ones, are mostly anti-AGW and/or measures to combat it, and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any acceptance of it, but, judging from your replies which I've left above, you seemed to have misread the purpose of their inclusion. You are right, but even if I have got the dates wrong I am right that the reason that they were looking for anthropogenic global warming is that this is what they were set up to do. I've already pointed out above that I'd heard of AGW as long ago as the late 1960s/early 1970s, so what is perhaps surprising that it took until 1988, when the IPCC was set up, to set up a body to investigate it, and, as you yourself have previously linked, they were set up to (my emphasis) ... ROLE 2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a *comprehensive*, *objective*, *open* and *transparent* basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. 3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments. So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's exactly what they do, but so what? Any idea that this is some global conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked conspiracy theory. It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method. I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results where there might not be any. If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't it been accepted as falsified? Because it hasn't been. The modelling is not perfect and needs to be improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth continuing and refining. How long can that argument be continued if the results don't come in? Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions' in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your OT sh*te elsewhere. ClimateGate =========== ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more recent times since the invention of thermometers. AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data. If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and replace it with data that is known to be good, and ensure that you explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done. As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...termediate.htm However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it should have been: "The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis): The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2] However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.”" But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history. As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has yet explained. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 18/10/2018 03:59, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:27 +0100, Java Jive wrote: 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 ... [...] If you can cite secondary sources so then can I :-). See https://www.skepticalscience.com/cer...ming-basic.htm "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step" Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy, no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation and therefore climate is small compared with other more important factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley, as already linked. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2 [ selective quoting removed ] ... a second step. No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of warming, as the discussion section makes clear: "it can be inferred from that a 20% variation in the ion production can impact the growth rate in the range 1–4% (under the pristine conditions). It is suggested that such changes in the growth rate can explain the ~2% changes in clouds and aerosol change observed during Forbush decreases7" There is also another problem with the theory. After 9/11, all flights were banned for some days afterwards, and some US scientists noticed during this period how clear and sunny were the skies in the absence of con-trails. This led them to investigate what is now often referred to as 'Global Dimming', which is increased cloud cover and changes in its nature, caused by the widespread presence of pollutants in the atmosphere, reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. Global dimming is widely accepted to have caused cooling contemporaneously with CO2 producing warming which has led us to underestimate the effect of the latter ... http://www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur! |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive
wrote: On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris wrote: This kind of stuff is garbage. I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far. I refer you again to: http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/ The Berkely project was set up because of the general distrust of publically available data. I think they have leaned most heavily on the NOAA data but they have been throug whatever they use most carefully. Many people regard them as having the best generally available data. The 'best generally available data' doesn't support *anything* that you've claimed here, so why do you persist in posting OT misinformation unsupported by any scientific provenance? It can only be because it's a religion to you. Take your f*king OT denialist sh*te elsewhere. I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the media. That depends on the media. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself with more mainstream media. I listen regularly to BBC World Service radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our webpage!" That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for selecting only one side of the argument. The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others they seem to be one eyed. --- snip --- I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but has many contributors. I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]" It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a source paper or to the data set that has been used. How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific provenance? Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or stonethrowing articles. The discussions tend to be biased Well I never, that's a surprise :-) but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source as any to track down mis- information Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical faculties. Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed. _Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research is properly peer reviewed. AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources. Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against so-called denialists or sceptics. Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here. I'm not just writing for your benefit. Even CERN has to be careful how they present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a case in point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low, suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it ever existed. Numeracy is not your strong point. But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's right, and you're wrong. The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El Nino superimposed on the long term trend. Since then warming as recommenced apace, as shown by the link above. How are your statistics? My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty. Mine are my mathematical weak point. Ah! Why am I not surprised? I was referring to statistics. My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology. Apart from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me. Then you should know better than to claim ... Apart from that, I don't agree with you about the pause. The whole situation has been confused by two El Ninos with a possible third coming up. Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation with CO2 levels. Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods? Evidence? Published scientific literature. An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence. I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points of 30 years of reading on the subject. It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had a political or personal agenda. You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age. Apart from that chris has shown no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of ferreting. I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong. How do you explain the changes shown in https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/ The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our current climate change phenomenon. How has it been distorted? I agree, I should have written discounted. It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem poorly familiar with). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]" Hoo! That's a put down. No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the *entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming. Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find his recent papers at the link which I have already given you http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Follow the money. That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers: And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there any evidence they have an axe to grind? In short, no! You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was threatened? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change "Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of those studies." Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?! If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all persons and organizations who finate climate research. It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil. Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of $100,000,000? Many are. Who? All the signatories to the Paris Agreement. That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to reduce their standard of living. They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The two are not necessarily linked. You will make a fortune if you can prove that is possible. There are few better. At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I agree. You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one conclusion. It cannot be fudged. If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged? That's a loaded question. As are all your arguments. I have never said that HadCRUT data has been fudged, although the Climategate emails suggest very strongly that they have been. What I have done is provide a link to an article which suggests that the standard of HadCRUT's data is highly suspect. Ah, I knew we'd get to Climategate sooner or later, after all, it's the denialists' favourite weapon of mass distraction. Unfortunately for you, there have been two independent investigations which cleared the scientists involved of any intention to deceive. See appended. Actually, there have been four enquiries, non of which were truly independent. Nevertheless the documented deeds remain. I agree, statistics can be used to bamboozle the ignorant. However this aspect started with my mention of a paper involving Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/ or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr McKitrick is one of the last people likely to be mislead by dubious statistics. He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his ramblings. https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says. No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams. Are you referring to the upwelling at the equator? Well, that does happen as a result of the coriolos effect. You will see a small diagram of this in fig 3 of http://www.marbef.org/wiki/ocean_circulation Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to finding evidence of warming. Read paras 1 and 2 of https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is already a given. It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm this. You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land. Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC. Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to acceptance of what the science is telling us ... [order changed to restore clarity of argument] That's politics again. THat's still politics and nothing much to with science. More politics. Even more politics. Yet more politics. That's internal politics. Following on from my last sentence above, I gave numerous examples (now snipped in the interests of brevity) that demonstrated that politicians, particularly US ones, are mostly anti-AGW and/or measures to combat it, and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any acceptance of it, but, judging from your replies which I've left above, you seemed to have misread the purpose of their inclusion. You are right, but even if I have got the dates wrong I am right that the reason that they were looking for anthropogenic global warming is that this is what they were set up to do. I've already pointed out above that I'd heard of AGW as long ago as the late 1960s/early 1970s, so what is perhaps surprising that it took until 1988, when the IPCC was set up, to set up a body to investigate it, and, as you yourself have previously linked, they were set up to (my emphasis) ... ROLE 2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a *comprehensive*, *objective*, *open* and *transparent* basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies. 3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments. So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's exactly what they do, but so what? The whole thing smacks of research to support Lysenkoism. The conclusion is preordained. Any idea that this is some global conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked conspiracy theory. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a scientific truth. It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method. I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results where there might not be any. If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't it been accepted as falsified? Because it hasn't been. The modelling is not perfect and needs to be improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth continuing and refining. How long can that argument be continued if the results don't come in? Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions' in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your OT sh*te elsewhere. The science is settled? Then why is so much money being spent in funding an enormous amount of research into the mechanics of climate change? ClimateGate =========== ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more recent times since the invention of thermometers. AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data. If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and replace it with data that is known to be good, ... The data wasn't known to be good. It's just that it came from an era when it could not be contradicted by modern technology. The tgruth is the we don't really know how good (or bad) the data was. ... and ensure that you explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done. As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...termediate.htm "The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and IPCC reports" - ah yes, but only after it was discovered. However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it should have been: And it corrupted the understanding of the data. "The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis): The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2] "should havebeen made plain". However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.”" But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history. As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has yet explained. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive
wrote: On 18/10/2018 03:59, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:27 +0100, Java Jive wrote: 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 ... [...] If you can cite secondary sources so then can I :-). See https://www.skepticalscience.com/cer...ming-basic.htm "At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step" Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy, no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation and therefore climate is small compared with other more important factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley, as already linked. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2 [ selective quoting removed ] ... a second step. No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of warming, as the discussion section makes clear: But Svensmark is making progress. See http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery "it can be inferred from that a 20% variation in the ion production can impact the growth rate in the range 1–4% (under the pristine conditions). It is suggested that such changes in the growth rate can explain the ~2% changes in clouds and aerosol change observed during Forbush decreases7" There is also another problem with the theory. After 9/11, all flights were banned for some days afterwards, and some US scientists noticed during this period how clear and sunny were the skies in the absence of con-trails. This led them to investigate what is now often referred to as 'Global Dimming', which is increased cloud cover and changes in its nature, caused by the widespread presence of pollutants in the atmosphere, reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. Global dimming is widely accepted to have caused cooling contemporaneously with CO2 producing warming which has led us to underestimate the effect of the latter ... http://www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur! Well one thing is certain: that is that the behaviour of clouds is not properly understood. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote: That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for selecting only one side of the argument. The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it. There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ... The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others they seem to be one eyed. Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion that is not based on nor will be swayed by science. I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but has many contributors. I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]" It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a source paper or to the data set that has been used. How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific provenance? Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or stonethrowing articles. How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis. but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source as any to track down mis- information Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical faculties. Time you started to acquire them. Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here. I'm not just writing for your benefit. You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Even CERN has to be careful how they present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a case in point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low, suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small compared to that of CO2. How are your statistics? My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty. Mine are my mathematical weak point. Ah! Why am I not surprised? I was referring to statistics. I know, and I wasn't surprised. My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology. Outside of my mainstream studies, I also took a unit in each of Astronomy, Geology And The Environment, Psychology, and Music. So what? Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation with CO2 levels. I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as in ... Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods? .... the implication being that there might have been something wrong about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're just trying to sling mud. But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science. I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points of 30 years of reading on the subject. It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had a political or personal agenda. You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age. I note that you do not attempt to refute my point, but instead try to move the goalposts, a typical denialist ploy, and I'm not falling for it. Apart from that chris has shown no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of ferreting. I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong. How do you explain the changes shown in https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/ It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA & NOAA for an explanation and/or gave them a chance to comment before publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked, because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again, this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only offer guesses. Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it. You yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of inconsistency and fraud! No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the *entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming. Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find his recent papers at the link which I have already given you http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory stands, according the figures already published it can only account for a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on its way out from Earth's surface! In short, no! You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was threatened? Only for the worse in our ability to predict the future, and, anyway, how would that change global warming itself? Do you seriously believe it will suddenly stop just because no-one is investigating it? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change "Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of those studies." Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?! If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all persons and organizations who finate climate research. It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil. Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of $100,000,000? I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute "In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to question or deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans.[2][3]:233–34[4] In the decade after 2000, the Heartland Institute became a leading supporter of climate change denial.[5][6] It rejects the scientific consensus on global warming,[7] and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.[8]" Note the link between tobacco denialism and climate change denialism, which tells you all you need to know - the latter learnt from the techniques of the former. As far as funding goes, and, again, note the link with tobacco ... "Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Institute, including $736,500 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[81][115] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[52] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that it would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[115][116][117][not in citation given] Joseph Bast, president of the Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[115] The Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[3]:234 Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly.[113] State Farm Insurance, USAA and Diageo are former supporters.[118] The Independent reported that Heartland's receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a "direct link...between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people's health."[57] The Institute opposes legislation on passive smoking as infringing on personal liberty and the rights of owners of bars and other establishments.[119]" So again I ask, why are acting as the unpaid employee of big oil? Or perhaps you are not unpaid? Many are. Who? All the signatories to the Paris Agreement. That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at https://climateanalytics.org/briefin...ation-tracker/ Many of these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to reduce their standard of living. They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The two are not necessarily linked. You will make a fortune if you can prove that is possible. In other words, you have no real answer to that statement of fact. Actually, there have been four enquiries, non of which were truly independent. Nevertheless the documented deeds remain. They were cleared of dishonestly and intentional wrong-doing, get used to it. So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's exactly what they do, but so what? The whole thing smacks of research to support Lysenkoism. The conclusion is preordained. LOL! Coming from a denialist, that is breathtakingly hypocritical, but, although it tells us nothing useful about the IPCC, it does reveal much about the way your mind works - because you think in terms conspiracies, you also think that everyone else must be part of one! The sad, simple truth is that neither you nor the world are that interesting! Its history shows that most governments couldn't organise the proverbial function in a brewery, let alone create and maintain over many decades some fantastical global conspiracy against you or me or anyone else. I hardly expected to mention Jane Austen's novels twice in a thread about global warming denialism, but the fact that I can with some justification merely shows how unchanging is human nature, including its many flaws. Her novel 'Northanger Abbey' is partly about a young woman who reads too many far-fetched and fantastic novels and, when she is unexpectedly invited to stay at the rather spooky eponymous residence, makes the mistake of thinking that its widowed proprietor somehow did away with his wife - the truth about her death turns out to be less interesting. Similarly today we are plied endlessly with fantastically unrealistic films where one man succeeds in winning through against some ubiquitous conspiracy involving everyone from the president himself down to the man sweeping the street in front of the hero's house, none of whom he can trust. Thankfully, the world is just not like that, but sadly, global warming is really real and is really happening, and so the IPCC were set up to investigate it, and are doing so. This, however boring, is the simple truth. Any idea that this is some global conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked conspiracy theory. Unfortunately there is no such thing as a scientific truth. Only to those like yourself so misguided as to deny it. Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions' in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your OT sh*te elsewhere. The science is settled? Then why is so much money being spent in funding an enormous amount of research into the mechanics of climate change? To improve the modelling so that we can predict the effects better. ClimateGate =========== ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more recent times since the invention of thermometers. AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data. If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and replace it with data that is known to be good, ... The data wasn't known to be good. It's just that it came from an era when it could not be contradicted by modern technology. The tgruth is the we don't really know how good (or bad) the data was. It was known to be good, because we have had reasonably accurate thermometers for hundreds of years, let alone since 1960, and there is no need of 'modern technology' to measure temperature. ... and ensure that you explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done. As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era: http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mike...termediate.htm "The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and IPCC reports" - ah yes, but only after it was discovered. Read again what I wrote in my introduction above, it was discovered in *1995*, *over a decade before* ClimateGate in 2009! Wriggle as you may, there is no way that you can make this part of your irrational global conspiracy. However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it should have been: And it corrupted the understanding of the data. Yes, at least one of the investigations openly acknowledged that, but that still doesn't make it a conspiracy, and the same investigation stated that it could find no evidence for one. "The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph (its emphasis): The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se, or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2] "should havebeen made plain". Exactly, but again that's a mistake or oversight, not a conspiracy. Read again the following ... However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature, including CRU papers.”" But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history. As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has yet explained. |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 19/10/2018 03:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive wrote: Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy, no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation and therefore climate is small compared with other more important factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley, as already linked. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2 [ selective quoting removed ] ... a second step. No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of warming, as the discussion section makes clear: But Svensmark is making progress. See http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery But the effect will never be large enough to explain any more than a small fraction of the current warming. Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur! Well one thing is certain: that is that the behaviour of clouds is not properly understood. Which makes it unscientific, as per Occam's razor, to assume that in some complicated way their creation by cosmic rays would somehow explain global warming, when we already have a far simpler and well understood explanation that correlates well with observation, CO2. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On 2018-10-19, Java Jive wrote:
Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion that is not based on nor will be swayed by science. Yes, it is tough dealing with these Warmists and their irrational, pseudo-religious belief that *we* are causing the earth's climate to change and that we will therefore take control of the climate to steer it back to whatever we think it should be. It's utter bilge of course, but it doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you put in front of the climate hucksters and their rank-and-file useful idiots. With so much power, control, taxes, funding, grants, etc. on the line, the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of its own. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Roger Blake (Posts from Google Groups killfiled due to excess spam.) NSA sedition and treason -- http://www.DeathToNSAthugs.com Don't talk to cops! -- http://www.DontTalkToCops.com Badges don't grant extra rights -- http://www.CopBlock.org ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive
wrote: On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote: On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive wrote: On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote: That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for selecting only one side of the argument. The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues: https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_w...artiality.html p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority. You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it. There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ... Its very much open to interpretation as I wrote below. The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others they seem to be one eyed. Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion that is not based on nor will be swayed by science. Hmmmm. I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but has many contributors. I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthon..._%28blogger%29 "Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]" It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a source paper or to the data set that has been used. How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific provenance? Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or stonethrowing articles. How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis. You are confused. The so-called 'bull' that I read is at a technical level which I would not expect to be presented by a popular broadcaster. The so-call 'bull' that I read contains all kinds of technical information which I variously reject, accept or put in abeyance for further judgement. I pay little attention to opinion pieces with no checkable theory or data. but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source as any to track down mis- information Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical faculties. Time you started to acquire them. Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here. I'm not just writing for your benefit. You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Even CERN has to be careful how they present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a case in point. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low, suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases. Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small compared to that of CO2. There you are then. Who is it who has the closed mind now? How are your statistics? My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty. Mine are my mathematical weak point. Ah! Why am I not surprised? I was referring to statistics. I know, and I wasn't surprised. My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology. Outside of my mainstream studies, I also took a unit in each of Astronomy, Geology And The Environment, Psychology, and Music. So what? I was merely explaining my mathematical background. Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation with CO2 levels. I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as in ... Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods? ... the implication being that there might have been something wrong about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're just trying to sling mud. I was merely checking on your willingness to accept unverified data. I've been following this field for long enough to have learned tat you should accept no data without learning more about it. But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science. I'm glad you have done that. But I don't know that Berkely ever got access to raw undigested data. I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points of 30 years of reading on the subject. It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had a political or personal agenda. You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age. I note that you do not attempt to refute my point, but instead try to move the goalposts, a typical denialist ploy, and I'm not falling for it. That's not a point but a cloud which there is no point trying to refute. Apart from that chris has shown no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of ferreting. I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong. How do you explain the changes shown in https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/ It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA & NOAA for an explanation ... What makes you think it hasn't been done? ... and/or gave them a chance to comment before publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked, because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again, this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only offer guesses. I agree. Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it. You don't alter data as a result of modelling it! Surely not! That's making the data fit the theory instead of vice versa. Mind you, they have been accused of that. You yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of inconsistency and fraud! The basic data is what you have got and it is abhorrent that it should be tinkered with. If the data is bad in one way or another you build that into the error margins and uncertainty. But you leave the data alone. Surely you were taught that in Stage 1 physics? I certainly was. No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the *entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming. Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find his recent papers at the link which I have already given you http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory stands, according the figures already published it can only account for a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on its way out from Earth's surface! You may be interested in: https://mailchi.mp/071cef970071/invi...3?e=99957e2afe or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd In short, no! You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was threatened? Only for the worse in our ability to predict the future, and, anyway, how would that change global warming itself? Do you seriously believe it will suddenly stop just because no-one is investigating it? But they are not investigating global warming. They are investigating anthropogenic global warming almost to the exclusion of all else. It is the exponents of the all else who are being described as deniers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change "Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of those studies." Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?! If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all persons and organizations who finate climate research. It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil. Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of $100,000,000? I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute. Answer: Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project --- long tail snipped --- -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:29:03 +0100, Java Jive
wrote: On 19/10/2018 03:42, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive wrote: Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy, no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation and therefore climate is small compared with other more important factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley, as already linked. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2 [ selective quoting removed ] ... a second step. No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of warming, as the discussion section makes clear: But Svensmark is making progress. See http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery But the effect will never be large enough to explain any more than a small fraction of the current warming. That's your opinion, and you may be right, but Svensmark thinks he is on the way to confirming his theory. He may be right. We will have to wait and see. Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur! Well one thing is certain: that is that the behaviour of clouds is not properly understood. Which makes it unscientific, as per Occam's razor, to assume that in some complicated way their creation by cosmic rays would somehow explain global warming, when we already have a far simpler and well understood explanation that correlates well with observation, CO2. Precisely. No doubt that is not quite what is being done. Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Intel CPU prices going up?
Roger Blake wrote:
On 2018-10-19, Java Jive wrote: Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion that is not based on nor will be swayed by science. Yes, it is tough dealing with these Warmists and their irrational, pseudo-religious belief that *we* are causing the earth's climate to change and that we will therefore take control of the climate to steer it back to whatever we think it should be. It's utter bilge of course, but it doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you put in front of the climate hucksters and their rank-and-file useful idiots. What's it like looking in the mirror? The evidence is hugely supportive of human induced climate change. There is evidence to support other theories, but it isn't anywhere near as complete nor been shown to influence the climate as much as CO2. If there's a side that refuses to accept the evidence it is not the climate scientists. With so much power, control, taxes, funding, grants, etc. on the line, The balance of power and money is massively in favour of the fossil fuel industry who have a vested ibterest in sowing doubt wherever they can. the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of its own. Sorry, but you're being played. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | Rate This Thread |
|
|