Intel CPU prices going up?

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

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

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

You should also read
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe

I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have
already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it.
There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ...

Its very much open to interpretation as I wrote below.

No, like anything else, it's open to misinterpretation, but there was
*nothing* in it that helps you.

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

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

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

Yet you link to them as evidence


but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down

mis-

information

Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical
faculties.

Time you started to acquire them.

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

I'm not just writing for your benefit.

You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're
in a hole, stop digging.

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

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

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

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

Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some
relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade
through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small
compared to that of CO2.

There you are then. Who is it who has the closed mind now?

I haven't got a closed mind, it's you who can't seem to grasp the
differing orders of magnitude of the effect of CO2 and cosmic ray cloud
formation. Even supposing Svensmark's ideas become widely accepted,
they're never going to account for more than a small fraction of the
observed warming, thus, to pursue this point any further is just wasting
everybody's time.

Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that
I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations
such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case
which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie'
which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.

I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead
try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to
be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as
in ...

Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?

... the implication being that there might have been something wrong
about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note
that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists
that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're
just trying to sling mud.

I was merely checking on your willingness to accept unverified data.
I've been following this field for long enough to have learned tat you
should accept no data without learning more about it.

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

But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't
remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the
available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first
findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason
since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science.

I'm glad you have done that. But I don't know that Berkely ever got
access to raw undigested data.

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

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

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

How do you explain the changes shown in
https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/

It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA
& NOAA for an explanation ...

What makes you think it hasn't been done?

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

... and/or gave them a chance to comment before
publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only
interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than
getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic
fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it
possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked,
because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams
from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again,
this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane
Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr
Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a
living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted
the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which
completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers
it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only
offer guesses.

I agree.

Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements
both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it.

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

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

That's making the data fit the theory instead of vice versa. Mind you,
they have been accused of that.

No, they aren't working back from the result to give the readings, in
this particular case that would be an extraordinarily complicated thing
to do, and of course would be completely unprofessional - faking has
happened sometimes in some areas of science, I can recall two examples
in paleontology that were uncomfortably long-standing, but such faking
usually comes to light sooner rather than later. You should recall that
all work published in any reputable science journal has to be
peer-reviewed, which, while always an imperfect process, nevertheless
does a pretty good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

You
yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they
not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of
inconsistency and fraud!

The basic data is what you have got and it is abhorrent that it should
be tinkered with. If the data is bad in one way or another you build
that into the error margins and uncertainty. But you leave the data
alone. Surely you were taught that in Stage 1 physics? I certainly
was.

You yourself linked to a critique of the data, should it not be audited
to try and improve it? All data needs to be audited. You mention
Physics experiments. When doing Physics experiments at uni, sometimes
I'd get an outlier, and wherever possible going back and remeasuring was
the best thing to do (and btw always showed that I'd made a mistake in
the first measurement!), but if my mistake was discovered after I'd
taken down the experiment and left the lab, then I'd have to leave it in
with a note concerning my doubts for that reading. But historical data
cannot be remeasured, so we have to make the most accurate use of it we
can, and further it must be in such a state that it can be used for
mathematical modelling, and that may mean correcting data (for example
replacing an obviously Fahrenheit reading by its Celsius equivalent),
deciding what should be done if an individual data point is missing
(preferably, interpolate it from neighbouring points), even discarding
an entire data series that is in so bad a state that it cannot be relied
upon, etc.

No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.

Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory
stands, according the figures already published it can only account for
a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to
explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud
cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's
radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on
its way out from Earth's surface!

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

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

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

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

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

....

Funding sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known
denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute.

Answer: Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project

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

On 20/10/2018 04:27, Eric Stevens wrote:
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:

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,

No, stop wasting everyone's time and go back and read the Wikipedia
article I linked again. The opinion above is that of almost every other
commentator on Svensmark's work (in what follows, please read the
*entirety* of it before replying at the end if you wish to do so -
I've deliberately cut out Svensmark's own replies, because they are
basically repetitions of themselves, so in the interests of balance let
me state before quoting the following that the main protagonists of
Svensmark's work are Svensmark himself and his academic superior, and
that there is some experimental support for his work, but not at a
sufficient level to account for at best anything more than a
comparatively small fraction of the currently observed warming):

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

"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."

"An early (2003) critique by physicist Peter Laut of Svensmark's theory
reanalyzed Svensmark's data and suggested that it does not support a
correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature changes; it also
disputes some of the theoretical bases for the theory.[25]"

"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,"

"In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published
a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing
the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[29] which
found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity
in the last 20 years."

"Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as
important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect
in global satellite cloud data". Harrison studied the effect of cosmic
rays in the UK.[31] He states: "Although the statistically significant
non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably
larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate
variations when day-to-day variability averages out". Brian H. Brown
(2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant
(p0.05) short term 3% association between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)
and low level clouds over 22 years with a 15-hour delay. Long-term
changes in cloud cover ( 3 months) and GCR gave correlations of
p=0.06.[32]"

[Note the low correlation figures]

"More recently, Laken et al. (2012)[33] found that new high quality
satellite data show that the El Niño Southern Oscillation is responsible
for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They
also found that galactic cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance did not
have any statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover."

"Lockwood (2012)[34] conducted a thorough review of the scientific
literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when
this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal
climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have
been exaggerated."

"Sloan and Wolfendale (2013)[35] demonstrated that while temperature
models showed a small correlation every 22 years, less than 14 percent
of global warming since the 1950s could be attributed to cosmic ray
rate. The study concluded that the cosmic ray rate did not match the
changes in temperature, indicating that it was not a causal
relationship. Another 2013 study found, contrary to Svensmark's claims,
"no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and
global albedo or globally averaged cloud height."[36]"

"In a detailed 2013 post on the scientists' blog RealClimate, Rasmus E.
Benestad presented arguments for considering Svensmark's claims to be
"wildly exaggerated".[38]"

So, basically, it's Svensmark and his boss against most of the rest of
the academic world. It may turn out that cosmic rays become accepted as
causing some influence on climate, but it's very, very, very unlikely to
be so strongly that we can ignore CO2, as the gist of your posts here
have implied.

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.

The above doesn't seem to make any sense in this context.

Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science.

You know, you really ought to get into the habit of researching properly
*everything* you say in threads like these, it would save you making a
**** of yourself so often:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

"In science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the
development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter
between candidate models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor
is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific
result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based
on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a
phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even
incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives.
Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses
to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to
more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5]"

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

Roger Blake wrote:
On 2018-10-19, Java Jive wrote:
Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.

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

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

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

Nor does CO2. :-)

If there's a side that refuses to accept the evidence it is not the climate
scientists.

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but you're being played.


--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:22:35 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

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

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

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

You should also read
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusiv...ampaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe

I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have
already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it.
There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ...

Its very much open to interpretation as I wrote below.

No, like anything else, it's open to misinterpretation, but there was
*nothing* in it that helps you.

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

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

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

Yet you link to them as evidence

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


but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down

mis-

information

Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical
faculties.

Time you started to acquire them.

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

I'm not just writing for your benefit.

You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're
in a hole, stop digging.

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

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

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

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

Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some
relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade
through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small
compared to that of CO2.

There you are then. Who is it who has the closed mind now?

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

I'm obviously behind you. I (and probably everyone else) have no real
idea of the magnitude of the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation.
Nor do they under any circumstances have a useful understanding of the
effect of clouds on global climate. To further complicate matters
there are a number of independent studies made from differing points
of view which suggest that if CO2 does have a measurable effect the
IPCC has overstated the effect by a factor of approximately 3.

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

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

Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that
I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations
such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case
which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie'
which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.

I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead
try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to
be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as
in ...

Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?

... the implication being that there might have been something wrong
about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note
that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists
that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're
just trying to sling mud.

I was merely checking on your willingness to accept unverified data.
I've been following this field for long enough to have learned tat you
should accept no data without learning more about it.

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

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

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

But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't
remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the
available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first
findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason
since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science.

I'm glad you have done that. But I don't know that Berkely ever got
access to raw undigested data.

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

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

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

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

How do you explain the changes shown in
https://realclimatescience.com/histo...re-corruption/

It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA
& NOAA for an explanation ...

What makes you think it hasn't been done?

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

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

... and/or gave them a chance to comment before
publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only
interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than
getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic
fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it
possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked,
because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams
from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again,
this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane
Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr
Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a
living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted
the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which
completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers
it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only
offer guesses.

I agree.

Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements
both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it.

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

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

Sorry, I'm used to double-speak. Auditing is the usual reason given
for altering. That applies to HadCRUT4 of which see
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...d-with-errors/
or http://tinyurl.com/ycnjezt8

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

That's making the data fit the theory instead of vice versa. Mind you,
they have been accused of that.

No, they aren't working back from the result to give the readings, in
this particular case that would be an extraordinarily complicated thing
to do, and of course would be completely unprofessional - faking has
happened sometimes in some areas of science, I can recall two examples
in paleontology that were uncomfortably long-standing, but such faking
usually comes to light sooner rather than later. You should recall that
all work published in any reputable science journal has to be
peer-reviewed, which, while always an imperfect process, nevertheless
does a pretty good job of sorting the wheat from the chaff.

You
yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they
not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of
inconsistency and fraud!

The basic data is what you have got and it is abhorrent that it should
be tinkered with. If the data is bad in one way or another you build
that into the error margins and uncertainty. But you leave the data
alone. Surely you were taught that in Stage 1 physics? I certainly
was.

You yourself linked to a critique of the data, should it not be audited
to try and improve it? All data needs to be audited. You mention
Physics experiments. When doing Physics experiments at uni, sometimes
I'd get an outlier, and wherever possible going back and remeasuring was
the best thing to do (and btw always showed that I'd made a mistake in
the first measurement!), but if my mistake was discovered after I'd
taken down the experiment and left the lab, then I'd have to leave it in
with a note concerning my doubts for that reading. But historical data
cannot be remeasured, so we have to make the most accurate use of it we
can, and further it must be in such a state that it can be used for
mathematical modelling, and that may mean correcting data (for example
replacing an obviously Fahrenheit reading by its Celsius equivalent),
deciding what should be done if an individual data point is missing
(preferably, interpolate it from neighbouring points), even discarding
an entire data series that is in so bad a state that it cannot be relied
upon, etc.

Agreed and understood.

No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.

Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/ph...blicationquery

Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory
stands, according the figures already published it can only account for
a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to
explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud
cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's
radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on
its way out from Earth's surface!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Funding sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An accurate description.

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

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

I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known
denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute.

Answer: Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project

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

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:14:23 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

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

Does that include chaos theory and fractals?

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 13:19:42 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 20/10/2018 04:27, Eric Stevens wrote:
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:

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,

No, stop wasting everyone's time and go back and read the Wikipedia
article I linked again.

Good God! Wikipedia! Is that where you get your science from?

Wikipedia is known to be biased on climate matters and battles royal
have raged on its pages trying to push the text in one direction or
another. Climate is not the only subject addressed in Wikipedia where
this is known to happen.

The opinion above is that of almost every other
commentator on Svensmark's work (in what follows, please read the
*entirety* of it before replying at the end if you wish to do so -
I've deliberately cut out Svensmark's own replies, because they are
basically repetitions of themselves, so in the interests of balance let
me state before quoting the following that the main protagonists of
Svensmark's work are Svensmark himself and his academic superior, and
that there is some experimental support for his work, but not at a
sufficient level to account for at best anything more than a
comparatively small fraction of the currently observed warming):

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

"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."

"An early (2003) critique by physicist Peter Laut of Svensmark's theory
reanalyzed Svensmark's data and suggested that it does not support a
correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature changes; it also
disputes some of the theoretical bases for the theory.[25]"

A lot has happened since 2003 including several experiments carried
out at CERN.

"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,"

"In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published
a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing
the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[29] which
found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity
in the last 20 years."

"Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as
important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect
in global satellite cloud data". Harrison studied the effect of cosmic
rays in the UK.[31] He states: "Although the statistically significant
non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably
larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate
variations when day-to-day variability averages out". Brian H. Brown
(2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant
(p0.05) short term 3% association between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)
and low level clouds over 22 years with a 15-hour delay. Long-term
changes in cloud cover ( 3 months) and GCR gave correlations of
p=0.06.[32]"

[Note the low correlation figures]

"More recently, Laken et al. (2012)[33] found that new high quality
satellite data show that the El Niño Southern Oscillation is responsible
for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They
also found that galactic cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance did not
have any statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover."

Willis Esenbach would suggest that they did not ask the right
questions of the data.

"Lockwood (2012)[34] conducted a thorough review of the scientific
literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when
this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal
climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have
been exaggerated."

"Sloan and Wolfendale (2013)[35] demonstrated that while temperature
models showed a small correlation every 22 years, less than 14 percent
of global warming since the 1950s could be attributed to cosmic ray
rate. The study concluded that the cosmic ray rate did not match the
changes in temperature, indicating that it was not a causal
relationship. Another 2013 study found, contrary to Svensmark's claims,
"no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and
global albedo or globally averaged cloud height."[36]"

"In a detailed 2013 post on the scientists' blog RealClimate, Rasmus E.
Benestad presented arguments for considering Svensmark's claims to be
"wildly exaggerated".[38]"

So, basically, it's Svensmark and his boss against most of the rest of
the academic world. It may turn out that cosmic rays become accepted as
causing some influence on climate, but it's very, very, very unlikely to
be so strongly that we can ignore CO2, as the gist of your posts here
have implied.

I have not suggested ignoring CO2. Indeed I would like to see it
occupying its rightful place in the climate pantheon.

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.

The above doesn't seem to make any sense in this context.

Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science.

You know, you really ought to get into the habit of researching properly
*everything* you say in threads like these, it would save you making a
**** of yourself so often:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

"In science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the
development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter
between candidate models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor
is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific
result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based
on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a
phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even
incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives.
Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses
to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to
more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5]"

Aah. That's a philosopher writing. The author is concerned about their
ability to build a rigorous philosophical structure. But in scientific
matters you exclude complex solutions at your peril.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:15:04 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-19 23:27, Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science.
[...]

Why not?

Because the simplest answer is not necessarily the right one.
e.g. Occams razor would favour Newton over Einstein.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 23:37:03 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

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

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

Does that include chaos theory and fractals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THats meaningless on its own.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 23:53:25 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-20 22:55, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:15:04 -0400, Wolf K
wrote:

On 2018-10-19 23:27, Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science.
[...]

Why not?

Because the simplest answer is not necessarily the right one.
e.g. Occams razor would favour Newton over Einstein.


Not at all. Newton is still valid, within a smaller scope of reality, is
all. That is, the difference between Einstein's and Newton's equations
is too small to measure with Newtonian instruments at the scale at which
Newton worked. You know, the scale of the high school physics lab.
Einstein's equations reduce to Newton's when V/c is "vanishingly small",
ie, below the ability to detect it and its effects.

BTW, when Copernicus proposed his helio-centric model of apparent
heavenly motions, the margin of observational error was too large to
differentiate between his model and Ptolemy's. But Copernicus's model
was and is simpler. Occam's razor in action.

You can't interpret any data without some philosophical and theoretical
framework, plus some practical context. Suppose I tell you that some
material has a Rockwell hardness of 30N and another has a hardness of
30T. What kind of sense can you make of those two data?

I've never had cause to use either of those two scales, in fact I have
always tried to avoid Rockwell. I'm happy with Brinell for ordinary
steels but prefer Vickers for harder materials. But that data you
quoted tells me that your two materials are a) soft and b) very soft.
What is your point?
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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

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

Roger Blake wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Nor does CO2. :-)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, but you're being played.

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

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

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

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

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

Yet you link to them as evidence

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

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

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

I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
h t t p s : / / w a t t s u p w i t h t h a t . c o m / 2 0 1 8 / 1 0
/ 1 4 / c l i m a t e - r e s e a r c h - i n - t h e - i p c c - w o n
d e r l a n d - w h a t - a r e - w e - r e a l l y - m e a s u r i n g
- a n d - w h y - a r e - w e - w a s t i n g - a l l - t h a t - m o n
e y /

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

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

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

On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
You may be interested in:
h t t p s : / / m a i l c h i . m p / 0 7 1 c e f 9 7 0 0 7 1 / i n v
i t a t i o n - c l i m a t e - a n d - t h e - s o l a r - m a g n e t
i c - f i e l d - 1 7 2 8 3 3 ? e = 9 9 9 5 7 e 2 a f e

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Read the *whole* of this before replying)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note that this hasn't happened.

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

So, affiliated to a well-known denialist organisation.

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

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

Highlights

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

Abstract

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sorry, I'm used to double-speak.

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

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

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

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

The same denialist misinformation ...

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

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

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

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

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

rgbatduke, October 2, 2015 at 10:36 am

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

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

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

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

* As I presume, Ordinary and Partial Differential Equations.

rgbatduke, November 10, 2015 at 1:19 pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Agreed and understood.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not if the messenger is a double agent.

Funding sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An accurate description.

Because ...

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

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

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

Answer: Stanford University's Global Climate and Energy Project

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

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

Perhaps, only time will tell.

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

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

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

Roger Blake wrote:

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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



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

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


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




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

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

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


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

Nor does CO2. :-)

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

I'm not lying, whether obviously or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Sorry, but you're being played.

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

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 21/10/2018 03:54, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 13:19:42 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

On 20/10/2018 04:27, Eric Stevens wrote:

On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:29:03 +0100, Java Jive
wrote:

But the effect will never be large enough to explain any more than a
small fraction of the current warming.

That's your opinion,

No, stop wasting everyone's time and go back and read the Wikipedia
article I linked again.

Good God! Wikipedia! Is that where you get your science from?

The Wikipedia article I quoted was even-handed and had links of
provenance, unlike almost everything that you've quoted, and both it and
the CLOUD results agreed that the effects, if even real, were an order
of magnitude too small to explain global warming.

Wikipedia is known to be biased on climate matters and battles royal
have raged on its pages trying to push the text in one direction or
another.

The only people who thinks it's seriously biased are denialists.

The opinion above is that of almost every other
commentator on Svensmark's work (in what follows, please read the
*entirety* of it before replying at the end if you wish to do so -
I've deliberately cut out Svensmark's own replies, because they are
basically repetitions of themselves, so in the interests of balance let
me state before quoting the following that the main protagonists of
Svensmark's work are Svensmark himself and his academic superior, and
that there is some experimental support for his work, but not at a
sufficient level to account for at best anything more than a
comparatively small fraction of the currently observed warming):

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

"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."

"An early (2003) critique by physicist Peter Laut of Svensmark's theory
reanalyzed Svensmark's data and suggested that it does not support a
correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature changes; it also
disputes some of the theoretical bases for the theory.[25]"

A lot has happened since 2003 including several experiments carried
out at CERN.

So, as I expected, you couldn't resist waiting 'til the end to reply.
This is another well-known denialist ploy, fragmenting the evidence thus
making it hard to follow.

"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,"

"In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published
a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing
the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[29] which
found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity
in the last 20 years."

"Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as
important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect
in global satellite cloud data". Harrison studied the effect of cosmic
rays in the UK.[31] He states: "Although the statistically significant
non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably
larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate
variations when day-to-day variability averages out". Brian H. Brown
(2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant
(p0.05) short term 3% association between Galactic Cosmic Rays (GCR)
and low level clouds over 22 years with a 15-hour delay. Long-term
changes in cloud cover ( 3 months) and GCR gave correlations of
p=0.06.[32]"

[Note the low correlation figures]

"More recently, Laken et al. (2012)[33] found that new high quality
satellite data show that the El Niño Southern Oscillation is responsible
for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They
also found that galactic cosmic rays, and total solar irradiance did not
have any statistically significant influence on changes in cloud cover."

Willis Esenbach would suggest that they did not ask the right
questions of the data.

Link?

"Lockwood (2012)[34] conducted a thorough review of the scientific
literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when
this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal
climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have
been exaggerated."

"Sloan and Wolfendale (2013)[35] demonstrated that while temperature
models showed a small correlation every 22 years, less than 14 percent
of global warming since the 1950s could be attributed to cosmic ray
rate. The study concluded that the cosmic ray rate did not match the
changes in temperature, indicating that it was not a causal
relationship. Another 2013 study found, contrary to Svensmark's claims,
"no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and
global albedo or globally averaged cloud height."[36]"

"In a detailed 2013 post on the scientists' blog RealClimate, Rasmus E.
Benestad presented arguments for considering Svensmark's claims to be
"wildly exaggerated".[38]"

So, basically, it's Svensmark and his boss against most of the rest of
the academic world. It may turn out that cosmic rays become accepted as
causing some influence on climate, but it's very, very, very unlikely to
be so strongly that we can ignore CO2, as the gist of your posts here
have implied.

I have not suggested ignoring CO2. Indeed I would like to see it
occupying its rightful place in the climate pantheon.

It's true that you haven't actually stated as much, but the direction of
your posts here make it clear that you think it relatively unimportant.

You know, you really ought to get into the habit of researching properly
*everything* you say in threads like these, it would save you making a
**** of yourself so often:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

"In science, Occam's razor is used as an abductive heuristic in the
development of theoretical models, rather than as a rigorous arbiter
between candidate models.[1][2] In the scientific method, Occam's razor
is not considered an irrefutable principle of logic or a scientific
result; the preference for simplicity in the scientific method is based
on the falsifiability criterion. For each accepted explanation of a
phenomenon, there may be an extremely large, perhaps even
incomprehensible, number of possible and more complex alternatives.
Since one can always burden failing explanations with ad hoc hypotheses
to prevent them from being falsified, simpler theories are preferable to
more complex ones because they are more testable.[3][4][5]"

Aah. That's a philosopher writing. The author is concerned about their
ability to build a rigorous philosophical structure. But in scientific
matters you exclude complex solutions at your peril.

Nonsense, you choose the simplest explanation of the known facts, and
that is that CO2 and other so-called 'greenhouse' gases cause global
warming. BTW, you may care to learn that if they didn't, the average
temperature of the planet would be below freezing, as it was during
'snowball earth', and that if it wasn't for CO2 from volcanism causing
warming, the planet would still be stuck in snowball earth, and we
wouldn't even exist!

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

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

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

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

Does that include chaos theory and fractals?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THats meaningless on its own.


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

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens

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

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

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

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

Roger Blake wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Time wasting #4: As #1.

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

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

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

Time wasting #6: As #1.

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

Time wasting #7: As #1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nor does CO2. :-)

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

I'm not lying, whether obviously or not.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

... which real employers no doubt pay their employees

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

who would suffer
if IPCC global warming became unimportant.

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

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

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