On 2018-10-17 00:14, Eric Stevens wrote:--
[...]
Are you referring to which side of the current to sail on according to[...]
direction of travel? If you are, he is right, as any sailing
directions will confirm. If you are not referring to that, I don't
understand what you are getting at.
It's about heat transported by ocean currents.
The Atlantic Conveyor moves warm water from the (sub-)tropics in the >northern/northeastern Atlantic. Since it floats on top of the colder
water there, that cold water subsides, and flows south (more or less)
well below the surface. The Conveyor is part of the worldwide >circulation/transport of heat by ocean currents. Here's a link that both >explains the system, and presents recent attempts to understand the
system better:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/the-atlantic-conveyor-belt-and-climate-10-years-of-the-rapid-project
Background as I have distilled it from many decades of reading science >journals and magazines:
As you know, water has a high specific heat, so even slight changes in
this system of warm and cold ocean currents can have large effects on
the circulation of air above the oceans, ie, the weather. See El Nino
and El Nina. If the Conveyor changes more than X (where X is at best a
rough estimate at this time), the climate of the northern Atlantic will >change. I.e., the climate from Greenland to Norway will change.
The ocean currents are obviously one of the factors driving the annual >weather cycles ("the climate"). The climate as a whole is a network of >feedback loops. Such networks are "chaotic systems". They cycle around a >sequence of state changes (eg, the seasonal changes of weather in your >locality) with some variability in each cycle. If some factor in the
system changes beyond some limit, the whole system tips into a new cycle
of state changes.
The unknowns are the triggering factors and their roles in the feedback >loops, and thus the rate of change into a new cycle of changes. The
"tipping point" could be on the order of a few seconds to many thousands
of years. The earliest climate models (1970s) suggested that climate
could change as quickly as about 100 years, depending on which factors >changed and by how much. Since these models did a good job of
"retrodicting" (matching known climate changes), these results created a >puzzle. That drove the creation of more powerful models, which have
merely refined these results: it is in fact possible for the climate to >change very rapidly. Since then, minor climate changes (such as the
Little Ice Age of the late Middle Ages) have shown that climate can
change very quickly indeed. Finer grained data from sediments and rocks >suggest that climate has occasionally tipped quite rapidly in the past, >probably on the order of a thousand years or so.
Statistics is not the best tool for analysing and understanding chaotic >systems like the weather and climate. That's why even eminent
statisticians are poor guides to understanding weather and climate. NB
that before the advent of supercomputers, weather prediction was >statistical, and notoriously unreliable beyond a short time frame, which
in Great Britain was approximately 1/2 a day (as I recall only too well
from my childhood there). Supercomputers enable the modelling of
multiple feedback loops one state-change at a time: the current state is
the input for calculating the next state. This has improved weather >prediction so that it's reliable for up to two or three days here, and >pretty good for up to a week or so. Even so, every so often the
prediction is badly off: some factor exceeds some limit, and instead of
a shower we get a thunderstorm.
Basically, any system of feedbacks between three or more entities is >chaotic. See the Three Body Problem for a very old example.
BTW, life itself is a driver of weather, and in the long run of climate.
Eg, ground cover affects the rate of water loss in the soils, and so
affects the hydrologic cycle that we call "rain."
Best,
On 17/10/2018 11:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.
Not so fast, if you please ...
"Dunne et al. (2016) have presented the main outcomes of 10 years of
results obtained at the CLOUD experiment performed at CERN [...]
Although they observe that a fraction of cloud nuclei is effectively >produced by ionisation due to the interaction of cosmic rays with the >constituents of Earth atmosphere, this process is insufficient to
attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the >cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and
Earth magnetosphere."
"Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus >Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper
in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature >observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no
type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it, although they accept
that there is "considerable evidence" for solar influence on Earth's >pre-industrial climate and to some degree also for climate changes in
the first half of the 20th century.[27]"
And so on and so forth. The full article quotes evidence *both* for and >against the theory. It seems that if cosmic rays do influence cloud
cover, the effect is small, as evidenced by the low levels of
correlation quoted and the fact that the controversy has raged for over
a decade without any clear cut findings declaring a victor. By
contrast, we do have a definite and much more significant correlation >between levels of atmospheric CO2 and temperature, as already linked.
--Don't be daft, this isn't about tax.
No, but he may, or may not, have been taking the piss.
... 14nm node for a while now. Instead of going towards 10nm
they just keep incrementing their 14nm with plus signs, what are they up
to now, 14nm++++? Regardless, even at 14nm they were able to keep up
with production before, why not now? It's not even only their high-end processors that are in short-supply, even their low-end value-oriented processors like i3-8100 or i5-8400 are not available. This doesn't sound
.....
...
This is a table from a recent Anandtech article announcing
the 9900K.
22nm 14/14+ 14++
Transistor fin pitch 60 42 42
Transistor gate pitch 90 70 84<--- relaxed pitch
Interconnect pitch 80 52 52
Transistor fin height 34 42 42
Some nodes are done for power saving, some are
done for max_clock (performance). The above doesn't
suggest a lot of radical change.
On 10/16/2018 4:01 AM, Paul wrote:
...
This is a table from a recent Anandtech article announcing
the 9900K.
22nm 14/14+ 14++
Transistor fin pitch 60 42 42
Transistor gate pitch 90 70 84<--- relaxed pitch
Interconnect pitch 80 52 52
Transistor fin height 34 42 42
Some nodes are done for power saving, some are
done for max_clock (performance). The above doesn't
suggest a lot of radical change.
Princopled Technology claimed that Intel i9-9900K was about 12% faster
than the top AMD Ryzen 2700X CPU.
Principled Technologies retested the Core i9-9900K: 12% faster but 66% pricier than Ryzen 2700X
https://www.dvhardware.net/article69724.html
Those Intel i9-9900K vs Ryzen 2700X Benchmarks Look Much Worse Now https://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2018/10/14/those-intel-i9-9900k-vs-ryzen-2700x-benchmarks-look-much-worse-now/#2546fb7f108e
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
This kind of stuff is garbage.
I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the
modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global
temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far. I
refer you again to:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The Berkely project was set up because of the general distrust of
publically available data. I think they have leaned most heavily on
the NOAA data but they have been throug whatever they use most
carefully. Many people regard them as having the best generally
available data.
I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends
not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a
link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the
media.
That depends on the media. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself
with more mainstream media. I listen regularly to BBC World Service
radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as
local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to
count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and
if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our
webpage!"
That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.
I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.
It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.
The discussions tend to be biased
but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down
information
Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.
_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research
is properly peer reviewed.
AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.
Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against
so-called denialists or sceptics.
Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.
Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it >>>> ever existed.
Numeracy is not your strong point.
But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's
right, and you're wrong. The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched
onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El
Nino superimposed on the long term trend. Since then warming as
recommenced apace, as shown by the link above.
How are your statistics?
Apart
from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me.
Apart from that, I don't agree with you about the pause. The whole
situation has been confused by two El Ninos with a possible third
coming up.
Evidence?
Published scientific literature.
An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence.
I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject.
Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.
The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.
How has it been distorted?
I agree, I should have written discounted.
It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on
the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem
poorly familiar with).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent
warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different
levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"
Hoo! That's a put down.
Follow the money.
That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big
oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers:
And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there any
evidence thay have an axe to grind?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change
"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of
those studies."
Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!
If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.
Many are.
Who?
All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.
That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at https://climateanalytics.org/briefings/ratification-tracker/ Many of
these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to
reduce their standard of living.
There are few better.
At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I >>>> agree.
You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper
statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one
conclusion. It cannot be fudged.
If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to
purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged?
That's a loaded question.
I have never said that HadCRUT data has been
fudged, although the Climategate emails suggest very strongly that
they have been. What I have done is provide a link to an article which suggests that the standard of HadCRUT's data is highly suspect.
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/2018/10/14/climate-research-in-the-ipcc-wonderland-what-are-we-really-measuring-and-why-are-we-wasting-all-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
McKitrick is one of the last people likely to be mislead by dubious statistics.
He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the >>>> Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his >>>> ramblings.
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/06conveyor2.html
It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in
contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says.
No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams.
Are you referring to the upwelling at the equator? Well, that does
happen as a result of the coriolos effect. You will see a small
diagram of this in fig 3 of
http://www.marbef.org/wiki/ocean_circulation
Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.
Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate >>>> change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.
It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That
was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given
since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians
established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm
this.
You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land.
Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC.
Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to
them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a
euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to
acceptance of what the science is telling us ...
That's politics again.
THat's still politics and nothing much to with science.
More politics.
Even more politics.
Yet more politics.
That's internal politics.
You are right, but even if I have got the dates wrong I am right that
the reason that they were looking for anthropogenic global warming is
that this is what they were set up to do.
It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method. >>>> I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot >>>> better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how >>>> the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
where there might not be any.
If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't
it been accepted as falsified?
Because it hasn't been. The modelling is not perfect and needs to be
improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth
continuing and refining.
How long can that argument be continued if the results don't come in?
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 10:58:39 -0400, Wolf K<wolfmac@sympatico.ca>[snip my post]
wrote:
And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there anyGovernments, via the UN.
evidence thay have an axe to grind?
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:27 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 17/10/2018 11:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.
Not so fast, if you please ...
[...]
If you can cite secondary sources so then can I :-).
See https://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming-basic.htm
"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray
effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
[ selective quoting removed ]
... a second step.
On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
This kind of stuff is garbage.
I don't think anyone involved thinks that either the data set or the
modelling from it is perfect, yet, this 'garbage' predicts global
temperatures more closely than anything else we have achieved so far. I >>> refer you again to:
http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings/
The Berkely project was set up because of the general distrust of
publically available data. I think they have leaned most heavily on
the NOAA data but they have been throug whatever they use most
carefully. Many people regard them as having the best generally
available data.
The 'best generally available data' doesn't support *anything* that
you've claimed here, so why do you persist in posting OT misinformation >unsupported by any scientific provenance? It can only be because it's a >religion to you. Take your f*king OT denialist sh*te elsewhere.
I have to go to Watts as this is the kind of information which tends
not to be printed by mainstream media. Watts almost always gives a
link to the original source, which is more than you will get from the
media.
That depends on the media. Perhaps you need to familiarise yourself
with more mainstream media. I listen regularly to BBC World Service
radio shows such as BBC Inside Science and Science in Action, as well as >>> local radio shows such as 'Naked Scientists', and I couldn't begin to
count the number of times I've heard at the end of an article "... and
if you want links to that paper/research/publication, they are on our
webpage!"
That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.
The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a >long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html
p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be >unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate >change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly >man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.
I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"
It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.
How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific >provenance?
The discussions tend to be biased
Well I never, that's a surprise :-)
but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down
mis-
information
Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.
_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research >>>> is properly peer reviewed.
AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.
Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against
so-called denialists or sceptics.
Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.
Even CERN has to be careful how they
present information in some areas. There follow up on Svensmark is a
case in point.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
That's because Svensmark has yet to prove that his mooted cause of
global climate change accounts for anything more than a small fraction
of the observed changes - the fact that the controversy has persisted
so long with neither side producing data that unambiguously clinches it >either way, while the correlations that have been given are very low, >suggests that if any effect occurs at all it is very small and
insufficient to account for observed global warming, and insignificant >compared with the effect of atmospheric CO2 and other greenhouse gases.
Ah, yes the faux pause. At most it was a decade and it's now over, if it >>>>> ever existed.
Numeracy is not your strong point.
But it is mine, I have a first in Mathematics and Computing, and he's
right, and you're wrong. The so-called 'pause' that denialists latched
onto was merely known short to mid-term decadal oscillations such as El
Nino superimposed on the long term trend. Since then warming as
recommenced apace, as shown by the link above.
How are your statistics?
My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I >completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty.
Mine are my mathematical weak point.
Ah! Why am I not surprised?
Apart
from that I have seven years of university mathematics behind me.
Then you should know better than to claim ...
Apart from that, I don't agree with you about the pause. The whole
situation has been confused by two El Ninos with a possible third
coming up.
Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that
I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is >noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations >such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case >which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' >which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as >inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.
Evidence?
Published scientific literature.
An assertion instead of a link to provenance is not evidence.
I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject.
It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't
any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it
was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the
late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a
piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and >often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal
that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real >understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had
a political or personal agenda.
Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.
I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.
The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our >>>>> current climate change phenomenon.
How has it been distorted?
I agree, I should have written discounted.
It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on >>> the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem >>> poorly familiar with).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent
warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different
levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"
Hoo! That's a put down.
No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.
Follow the money.
That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big >>> oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers:
And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there any
evidence they have an axe to grind?
In short, no!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change
"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed
to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that
the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism
by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of >>> those studies."
Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!
If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.
It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked
themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil.
Many are.
Who?
All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.
That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at
https://climateanalytics.org/briefings/ratification-tracker/ Many of
these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to
reduce their standard of living.
They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're
agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The
two are not necessarily linked.
There are few better.
At muddying the waters and being a voice for the fossil fuel industry I >>>>> agree.
You don't know much about statistics, that is certain. Proper
statistical analysis cannot be fudged and can only lead to one
conclusion. It cannot be fudged.
If statistics cannot be fudged, why elsewhere are you linking to
purported proof that the HadCRU data was fudged?
That's a loaded question.
As are all your arguments.
I have never said that HadCRUT data has been
fudged, although the Climategate emails suggest very strongly that
they have been. What I have done is provide a link to an article which
suggests that the standard of HadCRUT's data is highly suspect.
Ah, I knew we'd get to Climategate sooner or later, after all, it's the >denialists' favourite weapon of mass distraction. Unfortunately for
you, there have been two independent investigations which cleared the >scientists involved of any intention to deceive. See appended.
I agree, statistics can be used to bamboozle the ignorant. However
this aspect started with my mention of a paper involving Ross
McKitrick of the University of Guelph.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/14/climate-research-in-the-ipcc-wonderland-what-are-we-really-measuring-and-why-are-we-wasting-all-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
McKitrick is one of the last people likely to be mislead by dubious
statistics.
Are you referring to the upwelling at the equator? Well, that does
He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the >>>>> Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his >>>>> ramblings.It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in
https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/currents/06conveyor2.html >>>>
contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says.
No it doesn't, read it again, or just look at the succession of diagrams. >>
happen as a result of the coriolos effect. You will see a small
diagram of this in fig 3 of
http://www.marbef.org/wiki/ocean_circulation
Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to >>>>>> finding evidence of warming.
Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf
Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate >>>>> change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.
It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That
was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given >>>> since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians
established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm
this.
You are so way of the mark here that it's almost Never Never Land.
Firstly, the IPCC was founded in 1988, well before the UNFCCC.
Secondly, politicians hated the evidence when first it was presented to
them, and even now, like Trump (how appropriate that his name is a
euphemism for fart), have to be dragged kicking and screaming to
acceptance of what the science is telling us ...
[order changed to restore clarity of argument]
That's politics again.
THat's still politics and nothing much to with science.
More politics.
Even more politics.
Yet more politics.
That's internal politics.
Following on from my last sentence above, I gave numerous examples (now >snipped in the interests of brevity) that demonstrated that politicians, >particularly US ones, are mostly anti-AGW and/or measures to combat it,
and have to be dragged kicking and screaming to any acceptance of it,
but, judging from your replies which I've left above, you seemed to have >misread the purpose of their inclusion.
You are right, but even if I have got the dates wrong I am right that
the reason that they were looking for anthropogenic global warming is
that this is what they were set up to do.
I've already pointed out above that I'd heard of AGW as long ago as the
late 1960s/early 1970s, so what is perhaps surprising that it took until >1988, when the IPCC was set up, to set up a body to investigate it, and,
as you yourself have previously linked, they were set up to (my
emphasis) ...
ROLE
2. The role of the IPCC is to assess on a *comprehensive*,
*objective*, *open* and *transparent* basis the scientific, technical
and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific >basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and >options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral
with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with >scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the
application of particular policies.
3. Review is an essential part of the IPCC process. Since the IPCC is
an intergovernmental body, review of IPCC documents should involve both
peer review by experts and review by governments.
So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's >exactly what they do, but so what?
Any idea that this is some global
conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians
were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject
to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple >scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked
conspiracy theory.
It's called hypothesis testing. The core tenet of the scientific method. >>>>> I'm not going say that there aren't areas of science that need to do a lot
better in being crystal clear on how the experiment was designed and how >>>>> the data were analyzed. There is huge pressure to publish"positive" results
where there might not be any.
If hypothesis testing has been what they have been doing, why hasn't
it been accepted as falsified?
Because it hasn't been. The modelling is not perfect and needs to be
improved, but it agrees with the evidence sufficiently well to be worth
continuing and refining.
How long can that argument be continued if the results don't come in?
Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long can >denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions'
in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your
OT sh*te elsewhere.
ClimateGate
===========
ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included
in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring
widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more >recent times since the invention of thermometers.
AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the
relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the >scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have
not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these
locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a >decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature
measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been >established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes
tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the
sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak
such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such
names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning
the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data.
If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and
you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case
actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the
erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and
replace it with data that is known to be good, ...
... and ensure that you"The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and
explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done.
As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or >deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the >divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-intermediate.htm
However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted
for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a >mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it
should have been:
"The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and
the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph
(its emphasis):
The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find
that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se,
or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should
have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly >described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]
However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall--
picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the >literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report
in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC
reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the >subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature,
including CRU papers.”"
But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the
decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note >properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to
plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history.
As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline
in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was
the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the
northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has
yet explained.
On 18/10/2018 03:59, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:37:27 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 17/10/2018 11:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.
Not so fast, if you please ...
[...]
If you can cite secondary sources so then can I :-).
See
https://www.skepticalscience.com/cern-cloud-proves-cosmic-rays-causing-global-warming-basic.htm
"At the moment, it actually says nothing about a possible cosmic-ray
effect on clouds and climate, but it's a very important first step"
Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy,
no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said >already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation
and therefore climate is small compared with other more important
factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory
results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley,
as already linked.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
[ selective quoting removed ]
... a second step.
No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of
warming, as the discussion section makes clear:
"it can be inferred from that a 20% variation in the ion production can >impact the growth rate in the range 1–4% (under the pristine
conditions). It is suggested that such changes in the growth rate can >explain the ~2% changes in clouds and aerosol change observed during
Forbush decreases7"
There is also another problem with the theory. After 9/11, all flights
were banned for some days afterwards, and some US scientists noticed
during this period how clear and sunny were the skies in the absence of >con-trails. This led them to investigate what is now often referred to
as 'Global Dimming', which is increased cloud cover and changes in its >nature, caused by the widespread presence of pollutants in the
atmosphere, reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space.
Global dimming is widely accepted to have caused cooling
contemporaneously with CO2 producing warming which has led us to >underestimate the effect of the latter ...
http://www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming
Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's
certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation
from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from
the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually
be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur!
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.
The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html
p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change?utm_content=buffer3534e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe
The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.
--- snip ---
I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.
I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"
It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.
How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
provenance?
Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
stonethrowing articles.
Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.
_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research >>>>> is properly peer reviewed.
AFAICT all of the mainstream research has been formally published and
peer-reviewed, it's only denialists who rely on unproven sources.
Unpublished is not unproven. There is considerable bias against
so-called denialists or sceptics.
Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.
I'm not just writing for your benefit.
Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
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.
My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.
How do you explain the changes shown in https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/Apart from that chris has shown
no interest to the sources to which I have already referred him. He
lacks 'the curious mind' which is so essential for this kind of
ferreting.
I don't blame hime, time on this earth is limited, and it is pointless
waste of it endlessly to go over the same old ground because others
can't accept the simple scientific truth that they're wrong.
The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our >>>>>> current climate change phenomenon.
How has it been distorted?
I agree, I should have written discounted.
It's not been distorted, it's been discounted, as I've already quoted on >>>> the article about Anthony Watts (note the references, a concept you seem >>>> poorly familiar with).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
"Climate models have been used to examine the role of the sun in recent >>>> warming,[26] and data collected on solar irradiance[27] and ozone
depletion, as well as comparisons of temperature readings at different >>>> levels of the atmosphere[28][29] have shown that the sun is not a
significant factor driving climate change.[30][31]"
Hoo! That's a put down.
No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.
Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
And who funds the IPCC team and their supporters? Is there anyFollow the money.
That is *exactly* what you are doing - most denialism is funded by big >>>> oil such as Exxon Mobile and, as I've seen elsewhere, the Koch brothers: >>>
evidence they have an axe to grind?
In short, no!
You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was threatened?
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.
The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html
p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
You should also read https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change?utm_content=buffer3534e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe
The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.
I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.
I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"
It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.
How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
provenance?
Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
stonethrowing articles.
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.
Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.
I'm not just writing for your benefit.
Read the source http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationqueryEven 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.
How are your statistics?
My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I
completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty.
Mine are my mathematical weak point.
Ah! Why am I not surprised?
I was referring to statistics.
My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.
Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that
I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations
such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case
which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie'
which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.
Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?
I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject.
It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't
any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it
was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the
late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a
piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and
often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal
that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real
understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had
a political or personal agenda.
You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of
when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age.
How do you explain the changes shown in https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/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.
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/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
In short, no!
You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was threatened?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change
"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed >>>> to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that >>>> the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism >>>> by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial
support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of >>>> those studies."
Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!
If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.
It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked
themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil.
Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of
$100,000,000?
Many are.
Who?
All the signatories to the Paris Agreement.
That's definitely not correct. You will find a list of signatories at
https://climateanalytics.org/briefings/ratification-tracker/ Many of
these countries can hardly govern themselves, let alone agree to
reduce their standard of living.
They're not agreeing to reduce their standard of living, they're
agreeing to try to limit or reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The
two are not necessarily linked.
You will make a fortune if you can prove that is possible.
Actually, there have been four enquiries, non of which were truly independent. Nevertheless the documented deeds remain.
So yes, you're right, the IPCC was set up to investigate AGW, and that's
exactly what they do, but so what?
The whole thing smacks of research to support Lysenkoism. The
conclusion is preordained.
Any idea that this is some global
conspiracy of scientists and/or governments, many of whose politicians
were profoundly biased against AGW, and many of whom were also subject
to arbitrary periodic democratic change, is just crazy. The simple
scientific truth is *much* easier to accept than any half-baked
conspiracy theory.
Unfortunately there is no such thing as a scientific truth.
Results supporting AGW build with every year that passes, how long canThe science is settled? Then why is so much money being spent in
denialists like you maintain these spurious and specious 'discussions'
in the absence of any evidence supporting your point of view? Take your
OT sh*te elsewhere.
funding an enormous amount of research into the mechanics of climate
change?
ClimateGate
===========
ClimateGate, so-called, was about one particular series of data included
in an IPCC report which used tree-growth, as indicated by tree-ring
widths, as a proxy for temperature, both in the distant past and in more
recent times since the invention of thermometers.
AIUI, noone yet knows why, but since about 1995, well before the
relevant IPCC report, it has been known and widely discussed in the
scientific community that tree-rings in particular northern areas have
not tracked temperature since around 1960. To be exact, in these
locations, tree-ring data since 1960 if used as a proxy would suggest a
decline in temperature, whereas we KNOW from actual temperature
measurements that this would be incorrect. Further, as far as has been
established, prior to this date tree-ring data in northern latitudes
tracks well with both southern latitudes and temperature, making the
sudden divergence all the more mysterious. In loose scientific speak
such as you find in emails, this anomaly is variously known by such
names as 'the divergence problem', and 'the decline', the latter meaning
the decline in northern tree growth as expressed by tree-ring data.
If you know that a proxy is not tracking a variable during an era, and
you have the variable more reliably from other sources, in this case
actually from direct measurement, there is no reason to include the
erroneous proxies for that era, so you cut out the bad data and
replace it with data that is known to be good, ...
The data wasn't known to be good. It's just that it came from an era
when it could not be contradicted by modern technology. The tgruth is
the we don't really know how good (or bad) the data was.
... and ensure that you"The decline in tree-ring growth is openly discussed in papers and
explain to anyone reading your results exactly what you have done.
As explained in the following link, this is nothing in itself unusual or
deceitful about this, and the IPCC report itself openly discusses the
divergence of northern tree-ring data from actual temperature for this era: >>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-decline-intermediate.htm
IPCC reports" - ah yes, but only after it was discovered.
However, when later a graph constructed along these lines was submitted
for a WMO paper, the MATHEMATICAL 'trick', by which was meant merely a
mathematical technique, that had been done was not made clear, when it
should have been:
And it corrupted the understanding of the data.
"The Independent Climate Change Email Review examined the email and
the WMO report and made the following criticism of the resulting graph
(its emphasis):
The figure supplied for the WMO Report was misleading. We do not find
that it is misleading to curtail reconstructions at some point per se,
or to splice data, but we believe that both of these procedures should
have been made plain — ideally in the figure but certainly clearly
described in either the caption or the text. [1.3.2]
"should havebeen made plain".
--- Synchronet 3.17a-Linux NewsLink 1.110However, the Review did not find anything wrong with the overall
picture painted about divergence (or uncertainties generally) in the
literature and in IPCC reports. The Review notes that the WMO report
in question “does not have the status or importance of the IPCC
reports”, and concludes that divergence “is not hidden” and “the
subject is openly and extensively discussed in the literature,
including CRU papers.”"
But, put unfortunately loaded words such as 'trick' and 'hide the
decline' into the hands of enemies of climate change, and fail to note
properly on a copied into another document graph the procedures used to
plot it, and the rest, as they say, is history.
As BEST's results since have clearly shown, there never was a decline
in temperature over the era in question, the decline referred to was
the unexplained decline in tree-growth in certain areas of the
northern hemisphere as expressed by tree-ring data, and which noone has
yet explained.
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy,
no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said
already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation
and therefore climate is small compared with other more important
factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory
results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley,
as already linked.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
[ selective quoting removed ]
... a second step.
No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of
warming, as the discussion section makes clear:
But Svensmark is making progress. See http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's
certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation
from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from
the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually
be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur!
Well one thing is certain: that is that the behaviour of clouds is not properly understood.
Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.
On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 18/10/2018 03:45, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 14:08:07 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 17/10/2018 11:43, Eric Stevens wrote:
That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.
The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html
p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
You should also read
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change?utm_content=buffer3534e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
or http://tinyurl.com/y9nzrxwe
I did, and it's a very good read which entirely corroborates what I have >already linked above, so I wonder why you thought I needed to read it.
There is absolutely *nothing* there to support your assertion that ...
The problem with the BBC (and others) is that they keep on asserting
that various things are 'proved' and no counterbalancing opinions need
be cited. They may be honest according to their lights but to others
they seem to be one eyed.
Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.
I referred to Watts. He doesn't write much of this stuff himself but
has many contributors.
I refer you again to Watts' lack of scientific credentials:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29
"Watts ... attended electrical engineering and meteorology classes at
Purdue University, but did not graduate or receive a degree.[2][15]"
It is the exception for an essay to be published without a link to a
source paper or to the data set that has been used.
How many links have you actually followed and checked their scientific
provenance?
Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
stonethrowing articles.
How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most >people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load
of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if
you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a >quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis.
but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down
mis-
information
Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical
faculties.
Time you started to acquire them.
Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.
I'm not just writing for your benefit.
You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're
in a hole, stop digging.
Read the sourceEven 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.
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
Which one? Every single publication listed there could have some
relevance to your specious argument, and I'm certainly not going to wade >through them all looking for an effect that I already know to be small >compared to that of CO2.
How are your statistics?
My degree was originally going to be in Maths and Physics, and as such I >>> completed a Statistical Physics course without any difficulty.
Mine are my mathematical weak point.
Ah! Why am I not surprised?
I was referring to statistics.
I know, and I wasn't surprised.
My engineering degree was a four-year full-time course of study. Apart
from physics I had three years of engineering mathematics, two years
of pure mathematics, two years of applied mathematics and three years
of thermodynamics culminating in a cloud of simultaneous partial
differential equations. The only statistics I encountered was when as
an ofshoot I took the first year course in psychology.
Outside of my mainstream studies, I also took a unit in each of
Astronomy, Geology And The Environment, Psychology, and Music. So what?
Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that >>> I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations >>> such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case >>> which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' >>> which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.
I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead
try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to
be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as
in ...
Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?
... the implication being that there might have been something wrong
about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note
that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists >that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're
just trying to sling mud.
But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't
remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the >available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first >findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason >since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science.
I agree but it would take me a long time to list even the high points
of 30 years of reading on the subject.
It wouldn't take you a minute, because it's obvious that there aren't
any. I have known about anthropogenic global warming, although then it
was usually called something like the 'greenhouse effect', since the
late 1960s/early 1970s, and in all the time since I've never seen a
piece of opposing 'evidence' that withstood any scientific scrutiny, and >>> often the effort required to knock it down has been minimal, so minimal
that it was obvious the people putting these ideas forward had no real
understanding of Earth or Planetary Science, and/or almost certainly had >>> a political or personal agenda.
You must have first taken an interest in it in the dieing years of
when climate fearmongering was centered on the immenent ice age.
I note that you do not attempt to refute my point, but instead try to
move the goalposts, a typical denialist ploy, and I'm not falling for it.
How do you explain the changes shown inApart 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.
https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/
It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA
& NOAA for an explanation ...
... and/or gave them a chance to comment before
publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only >interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than
getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic >fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it >possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked, >because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams
from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again, >this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane >Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr >Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a >living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted
the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which >completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers
it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only
offer guesses.
Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements
both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it.
You
yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they
not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of
inconsistency and fraud!
No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear
that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.
Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
Yes, but the point is that even if he is entirely correct and his theory >stands, according the figures already published it can only account for
a very small percentage of the total warming, you still need CO2 to
explain it all. And there's still the possibility that increased cloud >cover would actually overall cause some cooling by reflecting the sun's >radiation back into space, rather than warming by absorbing radiation on
its way out from Earth's surface!
In short, no!
You don't think any problems would arise if their flow of funds was
threatened?
Only for the worse in our ability to predict the future, and, anyway,
how would that change global warming itself? Do you seriously believe
it will suddenly stop just because no-one is investigating it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denialism#Climate_change
"Some international corporations, such as ExxonMobil, have contributed >>>>> to "fake citizens' groups and bogus scientific bodies" that claim that >>>>> the science of global warming is inconclusive, according to a criticism >>>>> by George Monbiot.[9] ExxonMobil did not deny making the financial
contributions, but its spokesman stated that the company's financial >>>>> support for scientific reports did not mean it influenced the outcome of >>>>> those studies."
Oh yeh! So why did they fund them then?!
If yyou are concerned you will have to ask that question of all
persons and organizations who finate climate research.
It would be more the point if denialists such as yourself asked
themselves that question, and stopped being the unpaid employees of big oil.
Do you know who Exxon is currently funding to the tune of
$100,000,000?
I know that in the past they and Koch brothers have funded well-known >denialist organisation such as The Heartland Institute.
On 19/10/2018 03:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
Exactly, 'says nothing', and since then there has only been controversy, >>> no killer results to settle the question either way. As I have said
already, that suggests that the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation >>> and therefore climate is small compared with other more important
factors such as CO2, for which we had clear, unambiguous laboratory
results as long ago as the 1850s, and a good correlation from Berkeley,
as already linked.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
[ selective quoting removed ]
... a second step.
No, the effect is not large enough to explain the current level of
warming, as the discussion section makes clear:
But Svensmark is making progress. See
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
But the effect will never be large enough to explain any more than a
small fraction of the current warming.
Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's
certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation
from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from >>> the sun back into space. AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually
be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur!
Well one thing is certain: that is that the behaviour of clouds is not
properly understood.
Which makes it unscientific, as per Occam's razor, to assume that in
some complicated way their creation by cosmic rays would somehow explain >global warming, when we already have a far simpler and well understood >explanation that correlates well with observation, CO2.
On 2018-10-19, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.
Yes, it is tough dealing with these Warmists and their irrational, pseudo-religious belief that *we* are causing the earth's climate to
change and that we will therefore take control of the climate to steer
it back to whatever we think it should be.
It's utter bilge of course, but it doesn't matter how much evidence to the contrary you put in front of the climate hucksters and their rank-and-file useful idiots.
With so much power, control, taxes, funding, grants, etc.
on the line,
the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of
its own.
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
You should also read
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change?utm_content=buffer3534e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=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.
Most of the technical ones. I tend to ignore the political or
stonethrowing articles.
How hypocritical! Above you condemn the BBC for, thankfully in most
people's opinion, not wasting its audiences' time by feeding them a load
of unscientific bull, but you refuse to read similar bull yourself if
you think it goes against a belief that you appear to have adopted on a
quasi-religious rather than a scientific basis.
You are confused. The so-called 'bull' that I read is at a technical
level which I would not expect to be presented by a popular
broadcaster. The so-call 'bull' that I read contains all kinds of
technical information which I variously reject, accept or put in
abeyance for further judgement. I pay little attention to opinion
pieces with no checkable theory or data.
but are by no means one-sided. It's as good a source
as any to track down
mis-
information
Misinformation is everywhere. To deal with it you need good dritical
faculties.
Time you started to acquire them.
Correctly, they waste a lot of everyone's time, as you are doing here.
I'm not just writing for your benefit.
You are wasting *everyone's* time here, including your own. When you're
in a hole, stop digging.
Read the sourceEven 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. >>>>
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
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?
Have you even bothered to *look* at the graphs on the Berkeley page that >>>> I linked? How can you possibly claim that the long-term trend is
confused, when the upward trend is unmistakable?! For example, it is
noticeable that whereas before about 1920 short to mid term oscillations >>>> such as El Nino produced several significant periods of cooling, but
since then gradually these have become so much shorter and less
pronounced as to be now almost non-existent, and instead have been
replaced by occasional periods of standstill (as in the most recent case >>>> which denialists latched onto as 'proving that global warming was a lie' >>>> which, of course, all came tumbling down when warming recommenced, as
inevitably it was bound to do). And again, note the good correlation
with CO2 levels.
I note that you do not reply directly to this obvious point, and instead
try to raise doubts about what you yourself have already acknowledged to
be the 'best generally available data', or some such similar phrase, as
in ...
Have you discovered how the graphs were produced? Data and methods?
... the implication being that there might have been something wrong
about either their data or their techniques, 'something' which I note
that you do not name specifically, thus proving that like all denialists
that you have nothing scientifically credible to say, and that you're
just trying to sling mud.
I was merely checking on your willingness to accept unverified data.
I've been following this field for long enough to have learned tat you
should accept no data without learning more about it.
But, yes, I read it all up about 5 to nearly 10 years ago, I can't
remember exactly when, but it was after Berkeley decided to audit the
available data after so-called ClimateGate, and produced their first
findings having done so. It seemed to me then, and I have had no reason
since to change my mind, to be a good, solid, piece of science.
I'm glad you have done that. But I don't know that Berkely ever got
access to raw undigested data.
It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASAHow do you explain the changes shown inApart 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.
https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/ >>
& NOAA for an explanation ...
What makes you think it hasn't been done?
... and/or gave them a chance to comment before
publishing such an attack, but because they had an agenda and were only
interested in devaluing the science of climate change, rather than
getting to the truth, they didn't perform such an exercise of basic
fairness, and the opportunity to learn something was missed. Nor is it
possible to reconstruct anything useful by auditing what they've linked,
because they do not link to whole reports, only sections and diagrams
from them, and thus the all-important context has been lost, and, again,
this is a well known tactic of denialists. (It's rather like, in Jane
Austen's novel 'Pride & Prejudice', Mr Whickham tells Elizabeth that Mr
Darcy had failed to honour his father's will in leaving Mr Whickham a
living, but fails to tell her that by his own request he had accepted
the sum of £3,000 pounds instead of the living, information which
completely changes her opinion of both when she eventually discovers
it.) Consequently, neither you nor I can know the truth, and can only
offer guesses.
I agree.
Mine would be that the differences reflect improvements
both from auditing the data and the subsequent modelling from it.
You don't alter data as a result of modelling it! Surely not!
That's making the data fit the theory instead of vice versa. Mind you,
they have been accused of that.
You
yourself have claimed that the early data was flawed, should then they
not improve it? But then when they do, they get accused of
inconsistency and fraud!
The basic data is what you have got and it is abhorrent that it should
be tinkered with. If the data is bad in one way or another you build
that into the error margins and uncertainty. But you leave the data
alone. Surely you were taught that in Stage 1 physics? I certainly
was.
No, there are links supplied to relevant sources. Or just read the
*entire* article about Svensmark that I've linked, which makes it clear >>>> that these effects are as yet controversial and unproven, and at best
can only account for a very small fraction of the observed warming.
Its an ongoing work but Svensmark claims to have found the mechanism
which enhances the generation of cloud forming aerosols. You will find
his recent papers at the link which I have already given you
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
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/invitation-climate-and-the-solar-magnetic-field-172833?e=99957e2afe
or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd
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.
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
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:29:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 19/10/2018 03:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
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/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
But the effect will never be large enough to explain any more than a
small fraction of the current warming.
That's your opinion,
Which makes it unscientific, as per Occam's razor, to assume that in
some complicated way their creation by cosmic rays would somehow explain
global warming, when we already have a far simpler and well understood
explanation that correlates well with observation, CO2.
Precisely. No doubt that is not quite what is being done.
Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science.
I was merely explaining my mathematical background.[...]
Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science.[...]
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> wrote:
On 2018-10-19, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> wrote:
Only to those who hold an irrational, quasi-religious contrary opinion
that is not based on nor will be swayed by science.
Yes, it is tough dealing with these Warmists and their irrational,
pseudo-religious belief that *we* are causing the earth's climate to
change and that we will therefore take control of the climate to steer
it back to whatever we think it should be.
It's utter bilge of course, but it doesn't matter how much evidence to the >> contrary you put in front of the climate hucksters and their rank-and-file >> useful idiots.
What's it like looking in the mirror? The evidence is hugely supportive of >human induced climate change. There is evidence to support other theories, >but it isn't anywhere near as complete nor been shown to influence the >climate as much as CO2.
If there's a side that refuses to accept the evidence it is not the climate >scientists.
With so much power, control, taxes, funding, grants, etc.
on the line,
The balance of power and money is massively in favour of the fossil fuel >industry who have a vested ibterest in sowing doubt wherever they can.
the junk-science based climate hoax has taken on a life of
its own.
Sorry, but you're being played.
On 20/10/2018 04:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:19:30 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 19/10/2018 02:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
You should also read
https://www.carbonbrief.org/exclusive-bbc-issues-internal-guidance-on-how-to-report-climate-change?utm_content=buffer3534e&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=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.
Read the sourceEven 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. >>>>>
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
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.
It would be more to the point if the writers of such articles asked NASA >>> & NOAA for an explanation ...How do you explain the changes shown inApart 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.
https://realclimatescience.com/history-of-nasanoaa-temperature-corruption/ >>>
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/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
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/invitation-climate-and-the-solar-magnetic-field-172833?e=99957e2afe
or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd
No I won't, it's just another denialist front organisation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_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 2018-10-19 23:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
I was merely explaining my mathematical background.[...]
Does that include chaos theory and fractals?
On 20/10/2018 04:27, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:29:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 19/10/2018 03:42, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
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/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
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 >(p<0.05) 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
twat 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 2018-10-19 23:27, Eric Stevens wrote:
[...]
Apart from that, Occam's razor has nothing to do with science.[...]
Why not?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:14:23 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
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.
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:15:04 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
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.
On 2018-10-20 22:41, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:14:23 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
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.
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.)
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.
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.
On 2018-10-20 22:55, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:15:04 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
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?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> 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'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. :-)
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.
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 23:37:03 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
On 2018-10-20 22:41, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:14:23 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
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.
THats meaningless on its own.
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.
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 23:53:25 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
On 2018-10-20 22:55, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:15:04 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
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 theoreticalI've never had cause to use either of those two scales, in fact I have
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?
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?
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 12:22:35 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
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't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen/ 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
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
You may be interested in: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
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 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.
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/hbase/thermo/imgheat/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/18208928/233408642/name/phase+relation+between+atmospheric+carbon+and+global+temperature.pdf
For some reason that URL give TinyURL hiccups.
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.
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.
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/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-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/2016/06/16/can-both-giss-and-hadcrut4-be-correct-now-includes-april-and-may-data/
or http://tinyurl.com/hok3b3l which asks "Can Both GISS and HadCRUT4
be Correct?"
Agreed and understood.
You seem to have habit of shooting the messenger before reading theYou may be interested in:
https://mailchi.mp/071cef970071/invitation-climate-and-the-solar-magnetic-field-172833?e=99957e2afe
or http://tinyurl.com/ydx6ozhd
No I won't, it's just another denialist front organisation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming_Policy_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.
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.
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.
On 21/10/2018 02:48, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> 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 twat 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 Sat, 20 Oct 2018 13:19:42 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 20/10/2018 04:27, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Fri, 19 Oct 2018 16:29:03 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
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?
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 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
(p<0.05) 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.
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
twat 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.
On 2018-10-21 04:55, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 23:37:03 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
On 2018-10-20 22:41, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:14:23 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
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.
THats meaningless on its own.
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.
Exactly. So why do you claim the ability to asses the value of raw
climate data?
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:13:53 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
On 2018-10-21 04:55, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 23:37:03 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
wrote:
On 2018-10-20 22:41, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:14:23 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
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.
THats meaningless on its own.
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.
Exactly. So why do you claim the ability to assess 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.
On Sun, 21 Oct 2018 12:33:56 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
On 21/10/2018 02:48, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 20 Oct 2018 09:45:14 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:
Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> 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.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/14/climate-research-in-the-ipcc-wonderland-what-are-we-really-measuring-and-why-are-we-wasting-all-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
You will find more info at https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/11/bombshell-audit-of-global-warming-data-finds-it-riddled-with-errors/
and https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/15/met-office-responds-to-hadcrut-global-temperature-audit-by-mclean/
Have a look at the graph of temperature predictions at http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-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/2018/10/14/climate-research-in-the-ipcc-wonderland-what-are-we-really-measuring-and-why-are-we-wasting-all-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/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/surfacestationsreport_spring09.pdf
or http://tinyurl.com/p2rz7kf
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/press-release-agu15-the-quality-of-temperature-station-siting-matters-for-temperature-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.
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.
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 twat 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/documents/49/150120180711-p47_doc2_programme_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.
It reminds me of the old Punch cartoon 'They both think they are
saying 'am, sir".
Every manufacturer has a maximum threshold for producing a product. A
bakery can only produce as many loaves of bread per day as they have
ovens.
They cannot exceed that threshold without investing more money
when conjecturing long-lived increased demand. Without adding more
plants, Intel cannot increase their volume. Adding a plant or extending
an existing one costs a lot of money which is only be reasonably
qualified for expense if demand is expected to continue indefinitly, not
for a minor blip in demand. Demand has gone up and exceeded their manufacturing volume.
On 10/15/2018 1:36 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
Every manufacturer has a maximum threshold for producing a product. A
bakery can only produce as many loaves of bread per day as they have
ovens.
By that token, then Intel is one of the largest bakers ever.
They cannot exceed that threshold without investing more money
when conjecturing long-lived increased demand. Without adding more
plants, Intel cannot increase their volume. Adding a plant or extending
an existing one costs a lot of money which is only be reasonably
qualified for expense if demand is expected to continue indefinitly, not
for a minor blip in demand. Demand has gone up and exceeded their
manufacturing volume.
But that's not the case here. Demand hasn't gone up, it's stayed mostly
the same, but they are having trouble supplying even the same number of chips they used to easily supply with previous generations. For the new 8-core i9-9900K, they have apparently only produced about 500 chips
overall for the entire world! And so far no i7-9700K's at all! Add in
the problems with producing even i3's and i5's, something is wrong, especially on a mature node like 14nm! I think it might have something
to do with having to compete against AMD: AMD can put out a 6-core or an 8-core quite easily, it just puts two quad-core CCX's together; but
Intel has to create a brand new single die. And the dies are much
bigger, so yield must be lower?
And today, there was a rumour that they had completely cancelled their
10nm program! Intel denied it later, but usually they don't bother to address rumours unless it really hit close to home.
You're obviously making guesses. Demand hasn't gone up despite all the
news pundits saying otherwise. "Apparently" is another guess.
On 10/23/2018 1:45 PM, VanguardLH wrote:
You're obviously making guesses. Demand hasn't gone up despite all the
news pundits saying otherwise. "Apparently" is another guess.
We all are, as Intel obviously won't tell us. Anything you or I say will just be guesses. No point in mentioning it even, as it's assumed. But we
all have our years of experience to draw on, and our guesses can be
somewhat accurate.
Intel is having to produce six- and eight-core processors when it's used
to producing only quad-core maximum. It produced a lot of good dies of quad-core, but a hex- or octa-core will have larger dies, and that would make the number of good dies lower. A die that is twice as big will
result in an overall 75%-80% decrease in the number dies per wafer. That includes wasted space along the sides of the wafer.
Whereas AMD is just continuing to produce quad-core dies all day long,
and if it wants an octa-core, it just gives you two of them!
Yousuf Khan
That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.
The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a >long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html
p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be >unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate >change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly >man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that ‘as >journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of the
evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing in
terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing the
public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over the
next couple of hundred years.’
On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 13:57:43 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:
I thought this OT thread had ended but coincidntally I have just come
across this bit of breaking news (see below)
That's all very well but the BBC in particular are notorious for
selecting only one side of the argument.
The people who make such claims nearly always turn out to have a
denialist agenda unsupported by any science. The BBC have had a
long-standing policy of impartiality on this as on other issues:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/editorial_standards/impartiality/safeguarding_impartiality.html
p40 reads: "Climate change is another subject where dissenters can be
unpopular. There may be now a broad scientific consensus that climate
change is definitely happening, and that it is at least predominantly
man-made. But the second part of that consensus still has some
intelligent and articulate opponents, even if a small minority.
Jana Bennett, Director of Television, argued at the seminar that ‘as
journalists, we have the duty to understand where the weight of the
evidence has got to. And that is an incredibly important thing in
terms of public understanding – equipping citizens, informing the
public as to what’s going to happen or not happen possibly over the
next couple of hundred years.’
--- etc snipped ---
See https://www.pressgazette.co.uk/ofcom-to-review-depth-of-analysis-and-impartiality-of-bbc-news-and-current-affairs-output/?utm_source=CCNet+Newsletter&utm_campaign=29d527abba-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2018_10_26_12_50_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_fe4b2f45ef-29d527abba-20141501
or http://tinyurl.com/ybc7m45u
"Ofcom to review depth of analysis and impartiality of BBC news and
current affairs output"
'Ofcom' being the UK's communications regulator.
I think the Ryzen is a single die with two CCX on it.
So your yield is for an 8 core chips.
https://wccftech.com/amd-zeppelin-soc-isscc-detailed-7nm-epyc-64-cores-rumor/
Paul
On 10/24/2018 4:39 AM, Paul wrote:
I think the Ryzen is a single die with two CCX on it.
So your yield is for an 8 core chips.
https://wccftech.com/amd-zeppelin-soc-isscc-detailed-7nm-epyc-64-cores-rumor/
Paul
The CCX's are separate dies. That's why AMD is able to produce so many
of them for cheaply. In fact, it's given AMD a real advantage over
Intel, as Intel can't easily produce multi-chip modules yet. It needs a major design overhaul to achieve that. AMD probably already took the
pain during the Bulldozer years, ironed out all of the necessary steps
to produce MCM modules. Even though Bulldozer weren't MCM's, they had a
lot of features similar to MCM's.
Yousuf Khan
Looks like one silicon die to me. There are two IP blocks on it.
http://i.imgur.com/9TIpxDY.jpg
On the mobile part, there is one IP block (4 cores/8 threads)
https://tablet-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/amd_ryzen_processor_with_radeon_graphics_press_deck-legal_final-page-037.jpg
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11964/ryzen-mobile-is-launched-amd-apus-for-laptops-with-vega-and-updated-zen
"While Ryzen, Threadripper, and EPYC have used the 8-core Zeppelin
building block for their products, the laptop side of the equation
will combine the new high-performance Zen core with the latest Vega
graphics in a single piece of silicon.
Quad-Core with SMT
Vega 10 - 10 CUs (640 SPs)
"
Die shot of the mobile part, with one CCX on the left, GPU on the right.
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/11964/amd_ryzen_processor_with_radeon_graphics_press_deck-legal_final-page-052_678x452.jpg
HTH,
Paul
On 11/13/2018 6:16 PM, Paul wrote:
Looks like one silicon die to me. There are two IP blocks on it.
http://i.imgur.com/9TIpxDY.jpg
On the mobile part, there is one IP block (4 cores/8 threads)
https://tablet-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/amd_ryzen_processor_with_radeon_graphics_press_deck-legal_final-page-037.jpg
https://www.anandtech.com/show/11964/ryzen-mobile-is-launched-amd-apus-for-laptops-with-vega-and-updated-zen
"While Ryzen, Threadripper, and EPYC have used the 8-core Zeppelin
building block for their products, the laptop side of the equation
will combine the new high-performance Zen core with the latest Vega
graphics in a single piece of silicon.
Quad-Core with SMT
Vega 10 - 10 CUs (640 SPs)
"
Die shot of the mobile part, with one CCX on the left, GPU on the right.
https://images.anandtech.com/doci/11964/amd_ryzen_processor_with_radeon_graphics_press_deck-legal_final-page-052_678x452.jpg
HTH,
Paul
The Ryzens use 4-core CCX's, while the Threadrippers use 8-core CCX's. Here's the Ryzen block diagram:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5zq8av/ryzen_block_diagram_showing_44_33_and_22/
| Sysop: | DaiTengu |
|---|---|
| Location: | Appleton, WI |
| Users: | 910 |
| Nodes: | 10 (1 / 9) |
| Uptime: | 130:34:41 |
| Calls: | 12,131 |
| Calls today: | 5 |
| Files: | 186,512 |
| Messages: | 2,230,401 |
