View Single Post
  #22  
Old October 17th 18, 11:43 AM posted to alt.comp.os.windows-10,comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.chips,comp.sys.intel,alt.windows7.general
Eric Stevens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 46
Default Intel CPU prices going up?

On Wed, 17 Oct 2018 07:51:08 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 19:52:06 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Tue, 16 Oct 2018 06:55:40 -0000 (UTC), Chris
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:
On Mon, 15 Oct 2018 13:54:39 -0400, Wolf K
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.

Climate change is already evidenced and proven. After all it's been
changing for billions of years.

Indeed it has. However, the current temperatures are possibly the warmest
that humans as a species have ever experienced and the rate of warming is
frankly frightening.
https://xkcd.com/1732/


That is debatable. Our historical temperature record is far from
adequate. The record most relied by the IPCC is Hadcrut4 and the
quality of the data in this has been found to rather dreadful. The
British Met Office has acknowledged the errors and promised to fix
them at the next major review.


No data are perfect. Especially when dealing with chaotic systems such as
the weather and climate. Acknowledging that is not a weakness rather a
strength as it shows willingness to improve.


I quote:
-------------------------------
The Hadley data is one of the most cited, most important databases
for climate modeling, and thus for policies involving billions of
dollars.
McLean found freakishly improbable data, and systematic adjustment
errors , large gaps where there is no data, location errors,
Fahrenheit temperatures reported as Celsius, and spelling errors.
Almost no quality control checks have been done: outliers that are
obvious mistakes have not been corrected – one town in Columbia spent
three months in 1978 at an average daily temperature of over 80
degrees C. One town in Romania stepped out from summer in 1953
straight into a month of Spring at minus 46°C. These are supposedly
“average” temperatures for a full month at a time. St Kitts, a
Caribbean island, was recorded at 0°C for a whole month, and twice!
Temperatures for the entire Southern Hemisphere in 1850 and for
the next three years are calculated from just one site in Indonesia
and some random ships.
Sea surface temperatures represent 70% of the Earth’s surface, but
some measurements come from ships which are logged at locations 100km
inland. Others are in harbors which are hardly representative of the
open ocean.
When a thermometer is relocated to a new site, the adjustment
assumes that the old site was always built up and “heated” by concrete
and buildings. In reality, the artificial warming probably crept in
slowly. By correcting for buildings that likely didn’t exist in 1880,
old records are artificially cooled. Adjustments for a few site
changes can create a whole century of artificial warming trends.

Details of the worst outliers

For April, June and July of 1978 Apto Uto (Colombia, ID:800890)
had an average monthly temperature of 81.5°C, 83.4°C and 83.4°C
respectively.
The monthly mean temperature in September 1953 at Paltinis,
Romania is reported as -46.4 °C (in other years the September average
was about 11.5°C).
At Golden Rock Airport, on the island of St Kitts in the
Caribbean, mean monthly temperatures for December in 1981 and 1984 are
reported as 0.0°C. But from 1971 to 1990 the average in all the other
years was 26.0°C.
---------------------
This kind of stuff is garbage.


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


Do you have any sources that aren't partisan? Plus, blogs aren't science.
Anyone can spin whatever they want in a blog.


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.

Climate research is formally published and peer-reviewed.


_Some_ climate research is formally published. _Some_ climate research
is properly peer reviewed.


CO2 levels are also the highest in at least the last 650,000 years and are
approaching levels only seen in the cretaceous period 60mya
https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cret...hermal_Maximum


There is no doubt that mankind is adding to CO2 levels but the
argument for this being the cause of rising temperature is by no means
settled. Analysis of historical data shows that in the past a rise in
CO2 has followed an increase in temperature and not the reverse as
popularly supposed. We now have a situation where CO2 levels are
rising but , apart from el Ninos global temperatures have been static
for the last twenty years or so.


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.

To compound the matter the heat
content of deep ocean waters seems to be diminishing. Further, ther is
no doubt that the temperatue of the troposphere has been falling for
possibly as long as 40 years. Both of these point to a cooling earth.


Evidence?


Published scientific literature.

Interest is lowly building in the behaviour of the sun.


The sun, although influential, has been discounted as a cause of our
current climate change phenomenon.


How has it been distorted?

Human induced climate change is very
much open to debate.

Nope. Over 200 scientific organisations across the world support the
evidence for it.
http://www.opr.ca.gov/facts/list-of-...nizations.html

This level of agreement within the naturally skeptical scientific community
is unprecedented.


There is no point in me trying to discuss the politics of this
situation


The incredible denials of controversy theorists is staggering! How can this
be political? Politicians can't agree on anything and would sell their
grandmother if it win them votes. Scientists will not and do not accept
being by politicians what science is!


Follow the money.

194 countries + the EU signed the Paris agreement, although famously the
man-baby decided to withdraw (although not until 2020).
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement


I think you fill find that practically nobody is keeping their
promises. Trump took the USA out of it because they are where the
money is expected to flow from.


Many are.


Who?

And that's the point. We have to try and do something. Burying
our heads in the sand, didn't change facts. Especially challenging ones.

The cost of doing nothing is far higher.

The debate is over. Now we must get together and solve it before it's too
late.

I can't track down the original paper by Essex, McKitrick and Andresen
but you will find information about it at
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/10/...ll-that-money/
or http://tinyurl.com/y8pwfvhr
The data we have about the temperature of the earth is quite
inadequate and is unsuited to the claims as temperature measurent
accuracy.

Sure, there are plenty of armchair scientists who think they know better.


What are you? Are you even a scientist?


I am. Are you?


I am a mechanical engineer. What are you?

In fact, if you knew more
about climate change than can be gained from the news media you would
know that Ross McKitrick is a heavy-weight statistician who has thrown
light into the dark corners of the use and misuse of climate data.


Nope. He is a denialist in cahoots with others from Global Warming Policy
Foundation - a shady "charity" which refuses to disclose its sources of
funding.


And you complain about Watts being biased!

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.

Dr Ball is a geographer who clearly has an axe to grind for some reason. I
stopped reading your link after he started to introduce his anecdotes about
flying at low altitude and taking sea temperatures.


Pity. You might have learned something.

Plus he is wrong about how the north atlantic conveyor works, etc. Not very
credible, I'm afraid.


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.


He states that "cold water descending at the Poles and ascending at the
Equator". If can't get the basics right, I can't trust the rest of his
ramblings.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educat...conveyor2.html


It is slightly hilarious that you cite that NOAA page in
contradiction. It more or less says what Dr Ball says.

What is open
to prediction is how extreme it will get and when. This is dependent on
what actions governments take.

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

It doesn't matter. Climate modeling is extremely complex, the initial
assumptions can influence the final results. They're all approximations
from the best models, but they all have the same trend; global temperatures
significantly departing from the norm. None are consistent with there being
no warming.


Of course not. Right from the very beginning they were directed to
finding evidence of warming.

Read paras 1 and 2 of
https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-princip...principles.pdf


Try reading that again. They were tasked to look at the risks of climate
change and the adaptations and mitigations of its effect. Climate change is
already a given.


It was a given in 1998 when the IPCC charter was first drawn up. That
was the reason for my my next citation which shows that it was a given
since the 1992 Rio de Janiro conference. A bunch of politicians
established global warming as fact and set up the IPCC to confirm
this.

Then read
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...imate_Cha nge
"The UNFCCC objective is to "stabilize greenhouse gas concentrations
in the atmosphere at a level that would prevent dangerous
anthropogenic interference with the climate system".

What many people regard as the scientific findings are in fact what it
was that they were directed to find.


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?

However, climate science isn't one of them. The controversy over the
Climate Research Unit at UEA highlighted that there isn't a cover-up of
inconvenient data going on. Transparency is key in science.


I have a bridge ...

Those questioning the science are far less transparent to be believed.

The IPCC were tasked to do their job primarily because the evidence is so
overwhelming in supporting anthropomorphic climate change. You'd have to be
blind not to see it.

I don't know what kind of science you practice but I suspect
experimentation does not play a large part in it.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens