Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > alt.comp.os.windows-10 > #76549 > unrolled thread

Intel CPU prices going up?

Back to article view | Back to alt.comp.os.windows-10

Contents

  Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-10-15 09:13 -0400
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 10:58 -0400
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-15 12:19 -0500
        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? SilverSlimer <silver@slim.er> - 2018-10-15 18:43 -0400
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-15 12:36 -0500
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-15 13:54 -0400
        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-15 16:33 -0500
          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-15 20:11 -0400
        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-16 16:00 +1300
          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 06:55 +0000
            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-16 21:54 +1300
              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 19:52 +0000
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 17:14 +1300
                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 07:51 +0000
                    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 23:43 +1300
                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-17 14:08 +0100
                        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-18 15:45 +1300
                          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-18 13:57 +0100
                            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-19 14:42 +1300
                              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-19 15:20 +0100
                                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-20 15:40 +1300
                                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 09:11 -0400
                                    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 14:46 +1300
                                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 22:59 -0400
                                        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 21:37 +1300
                                          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-21 12:09 -0400
                                            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-22 11:23 +1300
                                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 19:48 +0100
                              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-19 16:19 +0100
                                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Roger Blake <rogblake@iname.invalid> - 2018-10-19 23:49 +0000
                                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-20 09:45 +0000
                                    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 14:48 +1300
                                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-21 12:33 +0100
                                        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-22 12:17 +1300
                                          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-22 13:06 +0100
                                          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 20:10 +0100
                                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-20 16:06 +1300
                                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-20 12:22 +0100
                                    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:38 +1300
                                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-21 23:49 +0100
                                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 21:25 +0100
                                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 09:14 -0400
                                    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:41 +1300
                                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 23:37 -0400
                                        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 21:55 +1300
                                          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-21 12:13 -0400
                                            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-22 12:25 +1300
                                              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-21 21:21 -0400
                                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-22 20:43 +0100
                            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-27 13:55 +1300
                              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-27 10:17 +0000
                          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-18 09:29 -0400
                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:40 +0100
                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-17 11:05 -0400
                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-17 10:58 -0400
                    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-18 15:47 +1300
                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-18 09:11 -0400
            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-16 11:15 -0500
              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-16 20:52 +0000
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 17:17 +1300
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-17 23:45 +1300
                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-17 14:37 +0100
                    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-18 15:59 +1300
                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-18 18:44 +0100
                        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-19 15:42 +1300
                          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-19 16:29 +0100
                            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-20 16:27 +1300
                              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-20 13:19 +0100
                                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:54 +1300
                                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> - 2018-10-22 00:17 +0100
                              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 09:15 -0400
                                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 15:55 +1300
                                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-20 23:53 -0400
                                    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-21 22:06 +1300
                                      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca> - 2018-10-21 12:55 -0400
                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2018-10-17 15:56 +0100
                    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> - 2018-10-18 16:00 +1300
              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JPG-255@255soft.uk> - 2018-10-16 23:14 +0100
            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Sam E <same@isnt.mail.invalid> - 2018-10-16 12:21 -0500
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-10-23 02:45 -0400
        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> - 2018-10-23 12:45 -0500
          Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-10-24 00:29 -0400
            Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-24 04:39 -0400
              Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-11-13 16:28 -0500
                Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-11-13 18:16 -0500
                  Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Yousuf Khan <bbbl67@spammenot.yahoo.com> - 2018-11-15 03:33 -0500
                    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-11-15 04:53 -0500
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 13:54 -0400
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-15 17:19 -0400
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-15 16:01 -0400
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2018-10-15 16:20 -0400
      Re: Intel CPU prices going up? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 11:29 +0800
        Re: Intel CPU prices going up? Paul <nospam@needed.invalid> - 2018-10-18 01:51 -0400
    Re: Intel CPU prices going up? "Mr. Man-wai Chang" <toylet.toylet@gmail.com> - 2018-10-18 11:25 +0800

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

#76714

On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 20:52:59 -0000 (UTC), Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com>
wrote:

>VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> wrote:
>> Chris wrote:
>> 
>>> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K <wolfmac@sympatico.ca>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> On 2018-10-15 13:36, VanguardLH wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> The future can only be predicted, not observed
>>>>>> (at which point it becomes history).
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> 
>>>>> ... and the predictions are calculated probabilities, not proven 
>>>>> conclusions.
>>>> 
>>>> I don't want to open a discussion about global warming (aka climate
>>>> change) here ...    :-)
>>> 
>>> Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
>>> to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
>>> what actions governments take.
>> 
>> Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
>> from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
>> greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
>> warming failed due to the current cooling).  
>
>Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break! 

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

His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.
>
>> Gamma radiation is highest when the sun is its most sluggish.
>> 
>> https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2006/10may_longrange
>> 
>> Can't tax the sun, so gov'ts turn to humans that they can tax.  Can't
>> tax the major source, so tax an available source.  Of course, not giving
>> grants unless the recipient agrees to the gov't stance on climate change
>> also means applying influence to effect their agenda (taxation).  They
>> deliberately skewed the news media.  Well, that's what gov'ts do.
>
>Renewable energy sources are taxed, including solar. 
>
>> Those that talk about Global Warming aka Climate Change have very short
>> time ranges.  They talk about now, not over geological time spans.  
>
>Er, no. Those are exactly the type of timescales that climate scientists
>look at. E.g 
>https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
>
>> Hm, since Earth's orbit changes from oval to circular, wonder which
>> Milankovitch cycle we've been in over the last 20 years.  
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles#Earth's_movements
>
>Just like the solar sun spot theory, it doesn't explain what we're
>observing as earth as well as greenhouse gas emissions. The rate of change
>is far too rapid. 
>
>> Nope, can't tax the planet, either, just the humans scurrying around
>> atop of it.
>
>Don't be daft,  this isn't about tax. 
>
>
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76717

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76773

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 ...
>
>"Dunne et al. (2016) have presented the main outcomes of 10 years of 
>results obtained at the CLOUD experiment performed at CERN [...] 
>Although they observe that a fraction of cloud nuclei is effectively 
>produced by ionisation due to the interaction of cosmic rays with the 
>constituents of Earth atmosphere, this process is insufficient to 
>attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the 
>cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and 
>Earth magnetosphere."
>
>"Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus 
>Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper 
>in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature 
>observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no 
>type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it, although they accept 
>that there is "considerable evidence" for solar influence on Earth's 
>pre-industrial climate and to some degree also for climate changes in 
>the first half of the 20th century.[27]"
>
>And so on and so forth.  The full article quotes evidence *both* for and 
>against the theory.  It seems that if cosmic rays do influence cloud 
>cover, the effect is small, as evidenced by the low levels of 
>correlation quoted and the fact that the controversy has raged for over 
>a decade without any clear cut findings declaring a victor.  By 
>contrast, we do have a definite and much more significant correlation 
>between levels of atmospheric CO2 and temperature, as already linked.

If you can cite secondary sources so then can I  :-).

See
https://www.skepticalscience.com/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

"Ions produced by cosmic rays have been thought to influence aerosols
and clouds. In this study, the effect of ionization on the growth of
aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei is investigated theoretically
and experimentally. We show that the mass-flux of small ions can
constitute an important addition to the growth caused by condensation
of neutral molecules. Under atmospheric conditions the growth from
ions can constitute several percent of the neutral growth. We
performed experimental studies which quantify the effect of ions on
the growth of aerosols between nucleation and sizes >20?nm and find
good agreement with theory. Ion-induced condensation should be of
importance not just in Earth’s present day atmosphere for the growth
of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei under pristine marine
conditions, but also under elevated atmospheric ionization caused by
increased supernova activity."

... a second step.
>
>>> Don't be daft,  this isn't about tax.
>
>No, but he may, or may not, have been taking the piss.
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76799

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!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76829

On Thu, 18 Oct 2018 18:44:04 +0100, Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid>
wrote:

>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:

But Svensmark is making progress. See
http://www.dtu.dk/english/service/phonebook/person?id=38287&tab=2&qt=dtupublicationquery
>
>"it can be inferred from that a 20% variation in the ion production can 
>impact the growth rate in the range 1–4% (under the pristine 
>conditions). It is suggested that such changes in the growth rate can 
>explain the ~2% changes in clouds and aerosol change observed during 
>Forbush decreases7"
>
>There is also another problem with the theory.  After 9/11, all flights 
>were banned for some days afterwards, and some US scientists noticed 
>during this period how clear and sunny were the skies in the absence of 
>con-trails.  This led them to investigate what is now often referred to 
>as 'Global Dimming', which is increased cloud cover and changes in its 
>nature, caused by the widespread presence of pollutants in the 
>atmosphere, reflecting more of the sun's radiation back into space. 
>Global dimming is widely accepted to have caused cooling 
>contemporaneously with CO2 producing warming which has led us to 
>underestimate the effect of the latter ...
>
>http://www.globalissues.org/article/529/global-dimming
>
>Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's 
>certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation 
>from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from 
>the sun back into space.  AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually 
>be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur!

Well one thing is certain: that is that the behaviour of clouds is not
properly understood.
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76845

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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76871

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:
>>>
>>> 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.

That's your opinion, and you may be right, but Svensmark thinks he is
on the way to confirming his theory. He may be right. We will have to
wait and see.
>
>>> Now, if it is really true that cosmic rays are causing clouds, it's
>>> certain that those clouds, besides trapping heat by absorbing radiation
>>> from the ground, will also reflect a portion of the incident energy from 
>>> the sun back into space.  AFAIK, no-one has tested which will actually
>>> be greater, and thereby whether cooling or warming will actually occur!
>> 
>> Well one thing is certain: that is that the behaviour of clouds is not
>> properly understood.
>
>Which makes it unscientific, as per Occam's razor, to assume that in 
>some complicated way their creation by cosmic rays would somehow explain 
>global warming, when we already have a far simpler and well understood 
>explanation that correlates well with observation, CO2.

Precisely. No doubt that is not quite what is being done.

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76881

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]"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76916

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:
>> 
>>> 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.  

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

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

>The opinion above is that of almost every other 
>commentator on Svensmark's work (in what follows, please read the 
>*entirety* of it before replying at the end if you wish to do so  - 
>I've deliberately cut out Svensmark's own replies, because they are 
>basically repetitions of themselves, so in the interests of balance let 
>me state before quoting the following that the main protagonists of 
>Svensmark's work are Svensmark himself and his academic superior, and 
>that there is some experimental support for his work, but not at a 
>sufficient level to account for at best anything more than a 
>comparatively small fraction of the currently observed warming):
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
>
>"Although they observe that a fraction of cloud nuclei is effectively 
>produced by ionisation due to the interaction of cosmic rays with the 
>constituents of Earth atmosphere, this process is insufficient to 
>attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the 
>cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and 
>Earth magnetosphere."
>
>"An early (2003) critique by physicist Peter Laut of Svensmark's theory 
>reanalyzed Svensmark's data and suggested that it does not support a 
>correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature changes; it also 
>disputes some of the theoretical bases for the theory.[25]"

A lot has happened since 2003 including several experiments carried
out at CERN.
>
>"Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus 
>Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper 
>in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature 
>observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no 
>type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it,"
>
>"In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published 
>a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing 
>the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[29] which 
>found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity 
>in the last 20 years."
>
>"Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as 
>important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect 
>in global satellite cloud data". Harrison studied the effect of cosmic 
>rays in the UK.[31] He states: "Although the statistically significant 
>non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably 
>larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate 
>variations when day-to-day variability averages out". Brian H. Brown 
>(2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant 
>(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.
>
>>> 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]"

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

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76971

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

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

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

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

>> The opinion above is that of almost every other
>> commentator on Svensmark's work (in what follows, please read the
>> *entirety* of it before replying at the end if you wish to do so  -
>> I've deliberately cut out Svensmark's own replies, because they are
>> basically repetitions of themselves, so in the interests of balance let
>> me state before quoting the following that the main protagonists of
>> Svensmark's work are Svensmark himself and his academic superior, and
>> that there is some experimental support for his work, but not at a
>> sufficient level to account for at best anything more than a
>> comparatively small fraction of the currently observed warming):
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
>>
>> "Although they observe that a fraction of cloud nuclei is effectively
>> produced by ionisation due to the interaction of cosmic rays with the
>> constituents of Earth atmosphere, this process is insufficient to
>> attribute the present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the
>> cosmic rays intensity modulated by changes in the solar activity and
>> Earth magnetosphere."
>>
>> "An early (2003) critique by physicist Peter Laut of Svensmark's theory
>> reanalyzed Svensmark's data and suggested that it does not support a
>> correlation between cosmic rays and global temperature changes; it also
>> disputes some of the theoretical bases for the theory.[25]"
> 
> A lot has happened since 2003 including several experiments carried
> out at CERN.

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

>> "Mike Lockwood of the UK's Rutherford Appleton Laboratory and Claus
>> Froehlich of the World Radiation Center in Switzerland published a paper
>> in 2007 which concluded that the increase in mean global temperature
>> observed since 1985 correlates so poorly with solar variability that no
>> type of causal mechanism may be ascribed to it,"
>>
>> "In April 2008, Professor Terry Sloan of Lancaster University published
>> a paper in the journal Environmental Research Letters titled "Testing
>> the proposed causal link between cosmic rays and cloud cover",[29] which
>> found no significant link between cloud cover and cosmic ray intensity
>> in the last 20 years."
>>
>> "Dr. Giles Harrison of Reading University, describes the work as
>> important "as it provides an upper limit on the cosmic ray-cloud effect
>> in global satellite cloud data". Harrison studied the effect of cosmic
>> rays in the UK.[31] He states: "Although the statistically significant
>> non-linear cosmic ray effect is small, it will have a considerably
>> larger aggregate effect on longer timescale (e.g. century) climate
>> variations when day-to-day variability averages out". Brian H. Brown
>> (2008) of Sheffield University further found a statistically significant
>> (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.

Link?

>> "Lockwood (2012)[34] conducted a thorough review of the scientific
>> literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when
>> this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal
>> climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have
>> been exaggerated."
>>
>> "Sloan and Wolfendale (2013)[35] demonstrated that while temperature
>> models showed a small correlation every 22 years, less than 14 percent
>> of global warming since the 1950s could be attributed to cosmic ray
>> rate. The study concluded that the cosmic ray rate did not match the
>> changes in temperature, indicating that it was not a causal
>> relationship. Another 2013 study found, contrary to Svensmark's claims,
>> "no statistically significant correlations between cosmic rays and
>> global albedo or globally averaged cloud height."[36]"
>>
>> "In a detailed 2013 post on the scientists' blog RealClimate, Rasmus E.
>> Benestad presented arguments for considering Svensmark's claims to be
>> "wildly exaggerated".[38]"
>>
>> So, basically, it's Svensmark and his boss against most of the rest of
>> the academic world.  It may turn out that cosmic rays become accepted as
>> causing some influence on climate, but it's very, very, very unlikely to
>> be so strongly that we can ignore CO2, as the gist of your posts here
>> have implied.
> 
> I have not suggested ignoring CO2. Indeed I would like to see it
> occupying its rightful place in the climate pantheon.

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

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

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

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76884

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

Why not?

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"Gentics is not genealogy." (Gragham Coop, Ph.D.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76917

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.
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76920

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?

Best,

-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"Gentics is not genealogy." (Gragham Coop, Ph.D.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76937

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 theoretical 
>framework, plus some practical context. Suppose I tell you that some 
>material has a Rockwell hardness of 30N and another has a hardness of 
>30T. What kind of sense can you make of those two data?
>
I've never had cause to use either of those two scales, in fact I have
always tried to avoid Rockwell. I'm happy with Brinell for ordinary
steels but prefer Vickers for harder materials. But that data you
quoted tells me that your two materials are a) soft and b) very soft.
What is your point?
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76957

On 2018-10-21 05:06, Eric Stevens wrote:
> 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.

Where's your response to this? Occam's Razor is often used improperly, 
but your example isn't one of them.

>> 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.

Where's your response to this? It's a text-book example of how Occam's 
razor is used as scientific insight increases.

>> You can't interpret any data without some philosophical and theoretical
>> framework, plus some practical context. Suppose I tell you that some
>> material has a Rockwell hardness of 30N and another has a hardness of
>> 30T. What kind of sense can you make of those two data?
>>
> I've never had cause to use either of those two scales, in fact I have
> always tried to avoid Rockwell. I'm happy with Brinell for ordinary
> steels but prefer Vickers for harder materials. But that data you
> quoted tells me that your two materials are a) soft and b) very soft.
> What is your point?

That numbers, "raw data" are meaningful only within some context. 
Furthermore, there is no such things a raw data. You can't perceive it: 
your brain interprets the raw data from your sensory systems so that you 
perceive soft/hard, etc. Those systems aren't good enough for some 
purposes, so we've developed data-gathering instruments to augment them. 
Just as the brain has to interpret the raw data into hard/soft, we have 
to interpret the raw data in from the instruments. Rockwell/etc scales 
are standardisations of that process.

Context is everything. The context of your global warming denial is your 
conviction that claims of rapid human-caused global warming are part of 
a hoax, a conspiracy to do, er, what, exactly?

Me, I never thought much about climate one way or another until I read 
an article in Science in the mid-70s about climate modelling, whose 
authors were surprised and disturbed by observing that some runs of 
their models showed climate changing very rapidly, on the order of a 
century or two. They had tweaked the models by testing them with known 
weather and climate data. When they plugged in current data, including 
variations to account for the fuzziness of the statistical projections 
of near-future data, the models appeared to misbehave. I found the 
article intriguing, in large part because I began to understand what a 
chaotic system is, and how difficult it is to describe/model it. I 
believed what I had been taught, that climate changed very slowly, on 
scales of millennia and tens of millennia. The notion that it could 
simply flip in a century or less seemed to me bizarre.

So why did I change my mind?



-- 
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"Gentics is not genealogy." (Gragham Coop, Ph.D.)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76721

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:
>>> Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
>>> from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
>>> greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
>>> warming failed due to the current cooling).
>>
>> Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark

Interesting, thanks.

> His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.

Yes, but from your link "this process is insufficient to attribute the 
present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the cosmic rays 
intensity". So confirmed, yes, (in one study) but not strong enough to 
have an influence.

Although the theory is the opposite of what Vanguard stated. Svensmark 
claims the Sun is currently stronger and "has batted away many of [the 
cosmic rays]" causing "fewer clouds and a warmer world".

You guys could at least try to get your stories *approximately* right...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76774

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 15:56:38 +0100, Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> 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:
>>>> Versus the increased gamma radiation (cosmic rays hitting solar protons)
>>>> from our sun that affects the cloud cover over our planet that has a far
>>>> greater effect on climate change (which is the new term since global
>>>> warming failed due to the current cooling).
>>>
>>> Seriously?! Gamma rays? Gimme a break!
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henrik_Svensmark
>
>Interesting, thanks.
>
>> His work has been largely confirmed by CERN and others.
>
>Yes, but from your link "this process is insufficient to attribute the 
>present climate modifications to the fluctuations of the cosmic rays 
>intensity". So confirmed, yes, (in one study) but not strong enough to 
>have an influence.
>
>Although the theory is the opposite of what Vanguard stated. Svensmark 
>claims the Sun is currently stronger and "has batted away many of [the 
>cosmic rays]" causing "fewer clouds and a warmer world".
>
>You guys could at least try to get your stories *approximately* right...

THat's science for you.

See https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-017-02082-2
-- 

Regards,

Eric Stevens

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76679

In message <p5juccrn33k3.dlg@v.nguard.lh>, VanguardLH <V@nguard.LH> 
writes:
[]
>deliberately skewed the news media.  Well, that's what gov'ts do.
[]
Do they need to - isn't it skewed enough on its own?

"One cannot hope to bribe or twist
thank god! the British journalist.

But when you see what he will do
UNbribed, there's no occasion to!"

I forget who coined that little ditty, but it was I think in the earlier 
part of the 20th century. (And of course it applies to a lot more than 
just the British media!)
-- 
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

(Petitions - at least e-petitions - should collect votes both for and
against, if they're going to be reported as indicative of public        [UK citizens
opinion. If you agree, please click below, unless you already have.)    only]
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230003/sponsors/new?token=gHafDVBYobumelL9J54c

... she has never contracted A-listeria or developed airs and graces. Kathy
Lette on Kylie, RT 2014/1/11-17

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#76663

On 10/16/2018 01:55 AM, Chris wrote:

[snip]

> Human induced climate change is already evidenced and proven. What is open
> to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
> what actions governments take.

That reminds me of a movie I saw once, where there was a worldwide 
shortage of oxygen and the government's solution was to burn down the 
forests (with the idea that trees were competitors).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#77042

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.

	Yousuf Khan

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 4 of 5 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | alt.comp.os.windows-10

csiph-web