Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.sys.intel > #605
| From | Java Jive <java@evij.com.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | alt.comp.os.windows-10, comp.sys.intel, alt.windows7.general |
| Subject | Re: Intel CPU prices going up? |
| Date | 2018-10-22 00:17 +0100 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <pqj1f4$161p$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (9 earlier) <ovgisdtr68v5us0lhmndnqgn3vejnr01sp@4ax.com> <pqct80$1ngc$1@gioia.aioe.org> <au7lsddmp7t3797ke8rc6svc0rs733pdll@4ax.com> <pqf6gv$18bm$1@gioia.aioe.org> <ctpnsd12mk10gf14odfda6146s6qlcp217@4ax.com> |
Cross-posted to 3 groups.
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!
Back to comp.sys.intel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar
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 09:59 +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? 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? 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? 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? 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? "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
csiph-web