In article <599074c188charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
> > Mountains Out Of Molehills.

> > The main area being people who pay vast sums for a cable which has had
> > some 'fairy dust' sprinkled on it to 'improve' some obscure minor
> > aspects (allegedly) of its ability to convey signals. Often based on a
> > bit of 'science' whose impact is bigged up by hype and the anxiety
> > many Hi-Fi ethusiasts have that somehow their Hi-Fi system isn't as
> > good as someone else's.

> I rememeber reading an article in what I believed to be a serious
> magazine saying that gold plated mains plugs improved stereo separation.

That sort of thing crops up routinely.

The basic problem is that what we perceive *varies* - with time, and with
exposure. So even if you play exactly the same bit of music twice, having
not changed anything external, your *ears and brain* may perceive things
which they didn't the first time.

Move your ears an inch, change in sound due to room acoustic. Play loud
music and the physiology of the hearing system in your ears alters and then
takes time to 'relax'. Use the same speakers after high levels, and the
cone suspensions have warmed up and changed the speaker behaviour.

And indeed, having listened the first time, the second time you may simply
notice details you missed the first time, or anticipate - and hear as being
'clearer' - things you noticed the first time round that got your
attention.

If you look though the papers published by AES members, etc, you can see
all these things carefully explored. But many people judge the item in ways
that are easily misdirected by such effects.

Similarly, some changes do produce a measureable effect. But one so slight
as to be swamped by a slight movement of the head, etc. This allows makers
and reviewers to say "it makes a difference" when in normal use, moving
your head a centimeter produces a larger and more noticable change.

As a result, pro hearing comparisons tend to be well controlled in terms of
the experimental methods of science... and the 'amazing discoveries'
evaporate.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

In article <59908a5c32bob@sick-of-spam.invalid>, Bob Latham
<bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:
> > > Preys on a lack of real understanding of science in order to use
> > > selective claims about 'science' to be deployed to flog twaddle to
> > > the marks.

> I think we need to clear up some nonsense here being used to be nasty
> and personal as usual as I've come to expect from certain quarters that
> should know better.

You may need to dial down your personal paranoia levels because I was
talking about MOOM and the widespread failures of people to understand
science and see though it. You aren't the center of all things.

> If you're talking about loudspeaker cables then their effect or lack of,
> is dependent on other factors, things like the electrical load the
> speaker presents to the amplifier and the type of music being listened
> to and under what conditions.

Yes.

> On my loudspeakers, in my room listening to my test tracks I quite
> clearly hear the effect some different speaker cables have on the sound
> reproduced.

That may well be correct. My point was about the 'scientific' reasons
people often present as the 'cause'. Not the fact that people hear changes.

I've also heard, and measured, changes as a result of changing some cables
in some cases.

> I recall back in the late 70s I was using the grey twin flex that came
> with my KEF speakers at the time and a friend brought round some QED 79
> strand speaker cables. No science, no vast cost though they were more
> money than the twin flex. I was shocked by the difference they made,
> really shocked. Since then I try things myself, some things make no
> difference for me, some do, some positive and some negative.

> The science involved is utterly irrelevant it only matters if it works
> or not.

The science matters as soon as someone says that a given cable or
'scientific' aspect of its properties is the 'reason' for the perceived
different. Not when someone says "Well I heard a difference.". When they
say that, they may well be right. But the question then is what caused that
perception in terms of the *science*. Knowing that helps avoid MOOM leading
people down - sometimes costly - blind allies. And may interfere with
them being able to understand the actual science. So hamper their
abilty to think.

> One thing I notice with all doubters on speaker cables, they've not
> tried it much if at all because, they know "the science" and it can't
> happen.

I've tried them repeatedly by listening, and done extensive measurements on
them. Many pages about this on my Audiomisc site. And, yes, I can find
examples where a change of cable affects the sound to an audible extent -
explained sensibly by real science. Not by the kind of MOOM used to sell
1000 quid speaker cables or mains cables or interconnects.

> > > MOOM is in essence a form of cherry picking. Something that Bob and
> > > Spike have been using. Sadly, people can easily believe these things
> > > as a result of not really understanding science.

> I see others talking of the nasty cancel culture left on social media,
> seems it's true, disagree with them and they attack personal and dirty.
> So glad I'm not of the left.

Your comment shows that you start off with your obsessive anti-left
anti-'woke' "reds under the beds" mindset and then paste that onto
scientific topics. The point about cherry-picking comes from the way that -
over, and over, and over again - you present 'cherries' like your infamous
'two point paper' which collapses into rubbish after a few mins of
scientific scrutiny. Yet you stubbornly refuse to even read a book that
outlines the genuine bulk of scientific evidence, etc, that gives the
context to understanding modern climate change and its consequences.

Get back to me when you've read that book and actually understand the
science. As it is, your record is one of cherry picking and
misunderstanding the science of climate change. For reasons which your
posts make clear are rooted in your political belief system. And
bolstered by your not understanding the relevant science, and then
simply misrepresenting it despight this being pointed out.

Jim

--
Please use the address on the audiomisc page if you wish to email me.
Electronics https://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scots_Guide/intro/electron.htm
biog http://jcgl.orpheusweb.co.uk/history/ups_and_downs.html
Audio Misc http://www.audiomisc.co.uk/index.html

On 09:55 25 Nov 2021, Jim Lesurf said:

> In article <599074c188charles@candehope.me.uk>, charles
> <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
>> > Mountains Out Of Molehills.
>
>> > The main area being people who pay vast sums for a cable which
>> > has had some 'fairy dust' sprinkled on it to 'improve' some
>> > obscure minor aspects (allegedly) of its ability to convey
>> > signals. Often based on a bit of 'science' whose impact is bigged
>> > up by hype and the anxiety many Hi-Fi ethusiasts have that
>> > somehow their Hi-Fi system isn't as good as someone else's.
>
>
>> I rememeber reading an article in what I believed to be a serious
>> magazine saying that gold plated mains plugs improved stereo
>> separation.
>
> That sort of thing crops up routinely.
>
> The basic problem is that what we perceive *varies* - with time, and
> with exposure. So even if you play exactly the same bit of music
> twice, having not changed anything external, your *ears and brain*
> may perceive things which they didn't the first time.
>
> Move your ears an inch, change in sound due to room acoustic. Play
> loud music and the physiology of the hearing system in your ears
> alters and then takes time to 'relax'. Use the same speakers after
> high levels, and the cone suspensions have warmed up and changed the
> speaker behaviour.
>
> And indeed, having listened the first time, the second time you may
> simply notice details you missed the first time, or anticipate - and
> hear as being 'clearer' - things you noticed the first time round
> that got your attention.
>
> If you look though the papers published by AES members, etc, you can
> see all these things carefully explored. But many people judge the
> item in ways that are easily misdirected by such effects.
>
> Similarly, some changes do produce a measureable effect. But one so
> slight as to be swamped by a slight movement of the head, etc. This
> allows makers and reviewers to say "it makes a difference" when in
> normal use, moving your head a centimeter produces a larger and more
> noticable change.
>
> As a result, pro hearing comparisons tend to be well controlled in
> terms of the experimental methods of science... and the 'amazing
> discoveries' evaporate.
>
> Jim

As you probably know the McGurk Effect is similar, although it's not
strictly what you're referring to.

http://www.viewpure.com/G-lN8vWm3m0?start=40&end=0

In article <2blupgt1lhgnkpmge4crkp47iqnl1diqpn@4ax.com>,
Roderick Stewart <rjfs@escapetime.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 24 Nov 2021 19:26:00 +0000 (GMT), Bob Latham
> <bob@sick-of-spam.invalid> wrote:

> >I recall back in the late 70s I was using the grey twin flex that
> >came with my KEF speakers at the time and a friend brought round
> >some QED 79 strand speaker cables. No science, no vast cost though
> >they were more money than the twin flex. I was shocked by the
> >difference they made, really shocked. Since then I try things
> >myself, some things make no difference for me, some do, some
> >positive and some negative.

> Did you change back to the grey twin flex *after* this experiment
> and observe the sound quality returning to its previous level?

Of course yes, I had to they weren't my cables anyway.

> I would guess that in a lot of instances when trying out some new
> supercalifragilistic speaker cables, the old cables will have been
> in situ for some time, and therefore the electrical contacts may
> not be as good as they should, and may include a bit of diode
> action from surface oxide. If this caused a slow degradation over
> time it might not be noticed, and a sudden improvement could result
> from the mere action of disturbing the connections for any reason.

I don't have a problem with that.

> Did you measure the resistance of the grey twin flex that came with
> the speakers and compare it with the resistance of the 79 strand?

No, I don't recall doing so.

> If the grey twin flex did reduce the quality after replacing it,
> did you then try some ordinary non-fancy, but thick, speaker cable
> from somewhere ordinary and non-fancy like B&Q? How did that sound?

The last time I purchased speaker cables for my hi-fi speakers was
around 2003/4 when I purchased an Arcam P7 power amplifier. The shop
lent me a whole bunch of cables for a bank holiday weekend and Judi
and I plodded our way through them. I'm sure I've told this tale
before here or on the audio group but anyway.

One reason for trying cables at that time was because with a 5.1
system I had two spare channels on the power amp and it seemed worth
trying the idea of bi-amping. ie. have two power amps with their
inputs connected together with one driving the Bass speaker and the
other the mid/top.

This idea held appeal because years before I had learnt that the
power amp I was then using was constantly going into VI limiting (too
much current for the amplitude of the wave form). So if there was any
chance of mitigating what I knew was a challenging impedance curve
of the speakers by splitting the load, I wanted to try it.

I'll tell you what I found and If you choose not to believe me,
that's your problem it is the truth. I would also say these findings
were on my system, I don't claim anything for anyone else's.

We, my wife and and I and later confirmed by a mate found that to our
surprise that the cables were not only different in sound but that
the we chose different cables for the bass and mid/top. Yes we were
surprised too and the shop hadn't come across this before and asked
if we were sure and tried to persuade us against.

We quickly learnt that the cables with many thin strands in each
conductor gave us a quite splashy tizzy treble that we didn't care
for. If I recall correctly (it was 2004) the chief one of the type we
tried was from Supra or a name similar.

As far as I can recall in all cases for us the then QED X-tube cable
had the tightest most dynamic/punchy bass and was quickly and easy
decided upon for that job. The mid top had a less obvious winner. The
QED didn't seem anything special in the mid/top but to be fair it
wasn't top of the X-tube range. We didn't like the Supra much and
something else can't remember what. With slightly more difficulty
than for the bass we decided we liked a twisted pair cable made by
Chord. No idea what it's called but my speakers can be a bit harsh
and this cable softened that but kept the treble clarity.

Yes, both of the cables we eventually purchased were more expensive
than twin flex but were not 4 figures or even close as at Russ what's
his name.

Here are the two none exotic cables cable tied together on my lounge
carpet. QED X-tube and Chord something or other..
http://www.mightyoak.org.uk/kit/speaker_cables.jpg

A note about testing.
Double blind testing is tedious and somewhat awkward to perform. We
normally both listen to something and write down impressions of what
we think our opinion of the product. To be honest, Judi is better at
listening than me. After the listen we compare what we wrote. Almost
always we agree about the main character of the cable or device.

I remember in that particular session it was very easy to swap the
chosen bass and mid range cables with each other without any changes
at the power amp end, it was then just wrong.

On the last day of the loan I got a mate to be arbiter and did a
blind test on him though I admit it wasn't double blind.

I've got to be honest here, this was never going to fail a blind or
double blind test, the difference too great. In perspective it makes
a fine adjustment it doesn't change the nature of your system.

I've told the tale in good faith, don't believe me, it's your loss.

Bob.

On 25/11/2021 09:29, Spike wrote:
>
> On 24/11/2021 14:23, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> No evidence about the world is ever entirely complete, so based
>> on that we should ignore all science and technical innovation and return
>> to being hunter gatherers using stone tools. Oh no, stone tools are
>> technology based on evidence, which is incomplete, so we can't use those
>> either, so we must just be hunter-gatherers using only what our bodies
>> alone can manage. Oh no, our minds are a tool that learns from
>> evidence, yet all evidence is incomplete, so we're not allowed to use
>> our minds either, and applying that to evolutionary 'learning' for every
>> living thing on the planet means that evolution can not possibly occur.
>> But evolution does occur, and we do learn from experience, and we do
>> make useful tools, and we are always having to make decisions on
>> incomplete knowledge. Get used to it.
>
> So tell us the reason *why* you feel the need to make a decision in the
> case of the Wuhan virus. Are you considering sending in Bomber Command
> to obliterate the lab?

Reread the explanation above, I'm following the widely held opinion of
the qualified scientists most closely involved and most knowledgeable
about that situation.

It's you who are choosing to differ from their opinion on the basis of
having no relevant qualifications and having read a few conspiracy
theories, so it's you that has to justify your opinion, not me that has
to justify mine.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/11/2021 09:28, Spike wrote:
>
> On 24/11/2021 13:48, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
>> the origin is zoonotic.
>
> Who carried out, and on what basis did they do so. the statistical exercise?

I've linked to plenty enough evidence up thread that supports my
opinion, you have still to link to any relevant evidence whatsoever, so
will again be ignored.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/11/2021 09:29, Spike wrote:
>
> On 24/11/2021 13:04, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> It seems to have escaped someone's notice that part of the reasoning
>> around Milankovic cycles is based on there being disproportionate
>> amounts of land and sea in the two hemispheres - the northern is
>> mostly land, the southern is most sea, so one would expect a
>> disproportionate response to insolation. The sea absorbs solar
>> radiation better, is a huge reservoir of heat, and can move, so lack of
>> insolation when the southern hemisphere is farthest from the sun is less
>> consequential to earth as a whole than for the northern.
>
> Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
> Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
> glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.

So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
*are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not
completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
about exactly? Do you even know?

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/11/2021 12:48, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 09:29, Spike wrote:
>> On 24/11/2021 13:04, Java Jive wrote:
>>>
>>> It seems to have escaped someone's notice that part of the reasoning
>>> around Milankovic cycles is based on there being disproportionate
>>> amounts of land and sea in the two hemispheres - the northern is
>>> mostly land, the southern is most sea, so one would expect a
>>> disproportionate response to insolation. The sea absorbs solar
>>> radiation better, is a huge reservoir of heat, and can move, so lack of
>>> insolation when the southern hemisphere is farthest from the sun is less
>>> consequential to earth as a whole than for the northern.
>>
>> Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
>> Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
>> glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.
>
> So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
> *are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not
> completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
> about exactly? Do you even know?

You brought up the issue, so you tell us why.

--
Spike

On 25/11/2021 12:30, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 09:29, Spike wrote:

>> On 24/11/2021 14:23, Java Jive wrote:

>>> No evidence about the world is ever entirely complete, so based
>>> on that we should ignore all science and technical innovation and return
>>> to being hunter gatherers using stone tools. Oh no, stone tools are
>>> technology based on evidence, which is incomplete, so we can't use those
>>> either, so we must just be hunter-gatherers using only what our bodies
>>> alone can manage. Oh no, our minds are a tool that learns from
>>> evidence, yet all evidence is incomplete, so we're not allowed to use
>>> our minds either, and applying that to evolutionary 'learning' for every
>>> living thing on the planet means that evolution can not possibly occur.
>>> But evolution does occur, and we do learn from experience, and we do
>>> make useful tools, and we are always having to make decisions on
>>> incomplete knowledge. Get used to it.

>> So tell us the reason *why* you feel the need to make a decision in the
>> case of the Wuhan virus. Are you considering sending in Bomber Command
>> to obliterate the lab?

> Reread the explanation above, I'm following the widely held opinion of
> the qualified scientists most closely involved and most knowledgeable
> about that situation.

> It's you who are choosing to differ from their opinion on the basis of
> having no relevant qualifications and having read a few conspiracy
> theories, so it's you that has to justify your opinion, not me that has
> to justify mine.

So tell us the reason *why* you feel the need to make a decision in the
case of the Wuhan virus.

--
Spike

On 25/11/2021 12:33, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 09:28, Spike wrote:
>> On 24/11/2021 13:48, Java Jive wrote:

>>> You are ignoring evidence, the evidence says that it is *PROBABLE* that
>>> the origin is zoonotic.

>> Who carried out, and on what basis did they do so. the statistical exercise?

> I've linked to plenty enough evidence up thread that supports my
> opinion, you have still to link to any relevant evidence whatsoever, so
> will again be ignored.

One thing you seemed not to have learned in this life is that people can
look at the same information yet form different opinions concerning it.
The further lesson for you is that your opinion, no matter how well you
think it is founded, does not trump the opinions of others. This is even
worse in the case of things such as the Wuhan virus or climate change,
where you are willing to form an opinion based on the opinions of
others. Shouting out about *EVIDENCE* or even *SCIENTIFIC* *EVIDENCE*
adds no weight to your opinion. Get over it, learn how science works,
and grow up.

--
Spike

On 25/11/2021 13:50, Spike wrote:
>
> On 25/11/2021 12:48, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
>> *are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not
>> completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
>> about exactly? Do you even know?
>
> You brought up the issue, so you tell us why.

I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by
Milankovic cycles.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/11/2021 14:29, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 13:50, Spike wrote:
>> On 25/11/2021 12:48, Java Jive wrote:

>>> So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
>>> *are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not
>>> completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
>>> about exactly? Do you even know?

>> You brought up the issue, so you tell us why.

> I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by
> Milankovic cycles.

Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.

But just to burst your bubble, I asked you this question:

"The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/interglacial periods. In every
one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years."

You then brought up the deflection of mentioning Milankovitch, whose
theory was that the ices ages came about as a result of orbital changes.

Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
temperature changes by thousands of years.

I can see why you brought in Milankovitch deflection, because you don't
want to explain the embarrassing CO2 lag.

--
Spike

On Thu, 25 Nov 2021 13:50:25 +0000, Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
wrote:

>On 25/11/2021 12:48, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 25/11/2021 09:29, Spike wrote:
>>> On 24/11/2021 13:04, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It seems to have escaped someone's notice that part of the reasoning
>>>> around Milankovic cycles is based on there being disproportionate
>>>> amounts of land and sea in the two hemispheres - the northern is
>>>> mostly land, the southern is most sea, so one would expect a
>>>> disproportionate response to insolation. The sea absorbs solar
>>>> radiation better, is a huge reservoir of heat, and can move, so lack of
>>>> insolation when the southern hemisphere is farthest from the sun is less
>>>> consequential to earth as a whole than for the northern.
>>>
>>> Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
>>> Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
>>> glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.
>>
>> So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
>> *are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not
>> completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
>> about exactly? Do you even know?
>
>You brought up the issue, so you tell us why.

bluddy optimist!

On 25/11/2021 15:44, Spike wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 14:29, Java Jive wrote:
>> On 25/11/2021 13:50, Spike wrote:
>>> On 25/11/2021 12:48, Java Jive wrote:
>
>>>> So, as I've stated all along and you now have agreed above, ice ages
>>>> *are* caused by Milankovic cycles, even if some of the details are not
>>>> completely understood, so why are you still trying to argue, and what
>>>> about exactly? Do you even know?
>
>>> You brought up the issue, so you tell us why.
>
>> I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by
>> Milankovic cycles.
>
> Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
> Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
> glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.

But well enough known to explain the recurring ice ages.

> But just to burst your bubble, I asked you this question:
>
> "The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/interglacial periods. In every
> one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years."
>
> You then brought up the deflection of mentioning Milankovitch, whose
> theory was that the ices ages came about as a result of orbital changes.

An explanation is not a deflection. What I wrote was:

On 22/11/2021 15:46, Java Jive wrote:
> Which is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science.
> Look up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles

.... and then ...

On 22/11/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
> the predictions of Milankovic cycles agree very well with the timings
> of ice ages, and are regarded by climate scientists and geologists
> alike as accepted science.

> Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
> temperature changes by thousands of years.

No, but I never claimed that it did, I claimed that the ice ages
themselves were explained by Milankovic cycles.

> I can see why you brought in Milankovitch deflection, because you don't
> want to explain the embarrassing CO2 lag.

Except that, to anyone that actually *UNDERSTANDS* the science, it's not
embarrassing at all, because it fits predictions very well.

CO2 & temperature are both part of a positive feedback loop, where
increases in one cause increases in the other, and decreases in one
cause decreases in the other:
CO2 <-> Temperature

Increasing the concentration of CO2 traps heat that would otherwise be
radiated out into space and reradiates some of it back down again, thus
raising the temperature. Raising the temperature causes more CO2 to be
released into the atmosphere by natural processes, such as fires and
desertification on land, but mainly from the oceans, which can hold less
CO2 in solution as the temperature rises, and therefore they release it
through their surface. It doesn't matter which side of this feedback
loop you begin by changing, the other will always act to amplify the
change still further and so on around the feedback loop until a new
point of equilibrium is reached.

But it's more complicated than that. A significant amplification factor
around this feedback loop is water vapour in the atmosphere, the amount
of which is temperature dependent. Therefore if you increase the
temperature by any method you choose, that will cause more water vapour
to be carried in the atmosphere, and so trap more heat in the same
manner as does CO2 because it too is a greenhouse gas, and thus the
temperature will rise further still, causing the release of still more
water vapour, and so on around the feedback loop until a new point of
equilibrium is reached; similarly if the temperature falls for any
reason, less water vapour will be carried by the atmosphere, less heat
trapped in by it, and so the temperature will fall still further, thus
leading to even less water vapour in the atmosphere, and so on around
the feedback loop until a new point of equilibrium is reached. However,
although there is very much more water vapour in the lower strata of the
atmosphere than CO2, its lifetime there is days or weeks rather than
decades or centuries as is the case with CO2 and other 'problem'
greenhouse gases, hence water vapour responds too quickly to changes in
ambient temperature to be able of itself to sustain climate change, it
can only amplify climate change caused by other factors, such as changes
in insolation caused by orbital cycles, as predicted by Milankovic, or
changes in the amount of long lifetime greenhouse gases like CO2.

But it's more complicated even than that, because there are still more
components of the positive feedback loop to consider. One is the
different albedo, reflectivity, of ice compared with land or sea. As
more ice melts, more solar energy is absorbed instead of being reflected
back into space, thus amplifying the original increase in temperature
that melted the ice. Another is that as permafrost melts, it releases
methane trapped within it, and that too is a greenhouse gas. Another is
that as ocean floor temperatures increase, they too start to release
methane.

Thus it is that changes in CO2 concentration, that on initial or
ignorant assessment might seem almost homeopathically small, can lead to
significant changes in temperature.

Hence it is entirely consistent that when such changes as described
above are initiated by orbital changes leading to changes in insolation,
temperature tends to leads CO2, but that doesn't alter one jot the fact
that if you kick-start the same feedback loop from the other side by
increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as man is doing, you
will get exactly the same results as you would get by increasing
insolation, global warming.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On 25/11/2021 16:52, Java Jive wrote:
> On 25/11/2021 15:44, Spike wrote:
>> On 25/11/2021 14:29, Java Jive wrote:

>>> I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by
>>> Milankovic cycles.

>> Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
>> Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
>> glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.

> But well enough known to explain the recurring ice ages.

Nobody needed them explained, so it's a mystery why you jumped in with
Milankovitch.

>> But just to burst your bubble, I asked you this question:

>> "The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/interglacial periods. In every
>> one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years."

>> You then brought up the deflection of mentioning Milankovitch, whose
>> theory was that the ices ages came about as a result of orbital changes.

> An explanation is not a deflection. What I wrote was:

> On 22/11/2021 15:46, Java Jive wrote:

> > Which is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science.
> > Look up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles

> ... and then ...

> On 22/11/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
> > the predictions of Milankovic cycles agree very well with the timings
> > of ice ages, and are regarded by climate scientists and geologists
> > alike as accepted science.

All irrelevant as no-one asked for the glacial/interglacials to be
explained.

>> Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
>> temperature changes by thousands of years.

> No,

Thanks.

> but I never claimed that it did, I claimed that the ice ages
> themselves were explained by Milankovic cycles.

No-one asked you to. The topic was irrelevant to the discussion.

>> I can see why you brought in Milankovitch deflection, because you don't
>> want to explain the embarrassing CO2 lag.

> Except that, to anyone that actually *UNDERSTANDS* the science, it's not
> embarrassing at all, because it fits predictions very well.

> CO2 & temperature are both part of a positive feedback loop, where
> increases in one cause increases in the other, and decreases in one
> cause decreases in the other:
> CO2 <-> Temperature

> Increasing the concentration of CO2 traps heat that would otherwise be
> radiated out into space and reradiates some of it back down again, thus
> raising the temperature. Raising the temperature causes more CO2 to be
> released into the atmosphere by natural processes, such as fires and
> desertification on land, but mainly from the oceans, which can hold less
> CO2 in solution as the temperature rises, and therefore they release it
> through their surface. It doesn't matter which side of this feedback
> loop you begin by changing, the other will always act to amplify the
> change still further and so on around the feedback loop until a new
> point of equilibrium is reached.

> But it's more complicated than that. A significant amplification factor
> around this feedback loop is water vapour in the atmosphere, the amount
> of which is temperature dependent. Therefore if you increase the
> temperature by any method you choose, that will cause more water vapour
> to be carried in the atmosphere, and so trap more heat in the same
> manner as does CO2 because it too is a greenhouse gas, and thus the
> temperature will rise further still, causing the release of still more
> water vapour, and so on around the feedback loop until a new point of
> equilibrium is reached; similarly if the temperature falls for any
> reason, less water vapour will be carried by the atmosphere, less heat
> trapped in by it, and so the temperature will fall still further, thus
> leading to even less water vapour in the atmosphere, and so on around
> the feedback loop until a new point of equilibrium is reached. However,
> although there is very much more water vapour in the lower strata of the
> atmosphere than CO2, its lifetime there is days or weeks rather than
> decades or centuries as is the case with CO2 and other 'problem'
> greenhouse gases, hence water vapour responds too quickly to changes in
> ambient temperature to be able of itself to sustain climate change, it
> can only amplify climate change caused by other factors, such as changes
> in insolation caused by orbital cycles, as predicted by Milankovic, or
> changes in the amount of long lifetime greenhouse gases like CO2.

> But it's more complicated even than that, because there are still more
> components of the positive feedback loop to consider. One is the
> different albedo, reflectivity, of ice compared with land or sea. As
> more ice melts, more solar energy is absorbed instead of being reflected
> back into space, thus amplifying the original increase in temperature
> that melted the ice. Another is that as permafrost melts, it releases
> methane trapped within it, and that too is a greenhouse gas. Another is
> that as ocean floor temperatures increase, they too start to release
> methane.

> Thus it is that changes in CO2 concentration, that on initial or
> ignorant assessment might seem almost homeopathically small, can lead to
> significant changes in temperature.

> Hence it is entirely consistent that when such changes as described
> above are initiated by orbital changes leading to changes in insolation,
> temperature tends to leads CO2, but that doesn't alter one jot the fact
> that if you kick-start the same feedback loop from the other side by
> increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as man is doing, you
> will get exactly the same results as you would get by increasing
> insolation, global warming.

[1] Spike wrote:

>> Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
>> temperature changes by thousands of years.

Java Jive answered:

> No

But later he goes on to quote from an article that suggests Milankovitch
cycles /do/ affect the CO2.

So, which is it, Java Jive? Why are you tripping over yourself?

[2] At least you've explained why the Roman Warm Period accounts for the
current rise in CO2.

[3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when
their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is
CO2 now keeping the planet cool?

[4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not
unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101
skills, such as they are...

--
Spike

On 26/11/2021 10:48, Spike wrote:
>
> On 25/11/2021 16:52, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> On 25/11/2021 15:44, Spike wrote:
>>>
>>> On 25/11/2021 14:29, Java Jive wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by
>>>> Milankovic cycles.
>>>
>>> Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
>>> Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
>>> glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.
>>
>> But well enough known to explain the recurring ice ages.
>
> Nobody needed them explained, so it's a mystery why you jumped in with
> Milankovitch.

You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a
predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
climate change.

>>> But just to burst your bubble, I asked you this question:
>>>
>>> "The Vostok ice core shows four glacial/interglacial periods. In every
>>> one, the CO2 lagged the temperature rise by hundreds to thousands of years."
>>>
>>> You then brought up the deflection of mentioning Milankovitch, whose
>>> theory was that the ices ages came about as a result of orbital changes.
>>
>> An explanation is not a deflection. What I wrote was:
>>
>> On 22/11/2021 15:46, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> > Which is *EXACTLY* as predicted and explained by climate science.
>> > Look up Milankovic/Milankovitch cycles
>>
>> ... and then ...
>>
>> On 22/11/2021 23:33, Java Jive wrote:
>> > the predictions of Milankovic cycles agree very well with the timings
>> > of ice ages, and are regarded by climate scientists and geologists
>> > alike as accepted science.
>
> All irrelevant as no-one asked for the glacial/interglacials to be
> explained.

Your ignorance seemed and still seems to have required it.

>>> Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
>>> temperature changes by thousands of years.
>>
>> No,
>
> Thanks.
>
>> but I never claimed that it did, I claimed that the ice ages
>> themselves were explained by Milankovic cycles.
>
> No-one asked you to. The topic was irrelevant to the discussion.

It's entirely relevant, because without understanding both the mechanism
driving the ice ages and the feedback mechanism of how they happen
described above, you can't understand why temperature should lead CO2 in
the geological records.

>>> I can see why you brought in Milankovitch deflection, because you don't
>>> want to explain the embarrassing CO2 lag.
>>
>> Except that, to anyone that actually *UNDERSTANDS* the science, it's not
>> embarrassing at all, because it fits predictions very well.
>>
>> CO2 & temperature are both part of a positive feedback loop, where
>> increases in one cause increases in the other, and decreases in one
>> cause decreases in the other:
>> CO2 <-> Temperature
>>
>> Increasing the concentration of CO2 traps heat that would otherwise be
>> radiated out into space and reradiates some of it back down again, thus
>> raising the temperature. Raising the temperature causes more CO2 to be
>> released into the atmosphere by natural processes, such as fires and
>> desertification on land, but mainly from the oceans, which can hold less
>> CO2 in solution as the temperature rises, and therefore they release it
>> through their surface. It doesn't matter which side of this feedback
>> loop you begin by changing, the other will always act to amplify the
>> change still further and so on around the feedback loop until a new
>> point of equilibrium is reached.
>>
>> But it's more complicated than that. A significant amplification factor
>> around this feedback loop is water vapour in the atmosphere, the amount
>> of which is temperature dependent. Therefore if you increase the
>> temperature by any method you choose, that will cause more water vapour
>> to be carried in the atmosphere, and so trap more heat in the same
>> manner as does CO2 because it too is a greenhouse gas, and thus the
>> temperature will rise further still, causing the release of still more
>> water vapour, and so on around the feedback loop until a new point of
>> equilibrium is reached; similarly if the temperature falls for any
>> reason, less water vapour will be carried by the atmosphere, less heat
>> trapped in by it, and so the temperature will fall still further, thus
>> leading to even less water vapour in the atmosphere, and so on around
>> the feedback loop until a new point of equilibrium is reached. However,
>> although there is very much more water vapour in the lower strata of the
>> atmosphere than CO2, its lifetime there is days or weeks rather than
>> decades or centuries as is the case with CO2 and other 'problem'
>> greenhouse gases, hence water vapour responds too quickly to changes in
>> ambient temperature to be able of itself to sustain climate change, it
>> can only amplify climate change caused by other factors, such as changes
>> in insolation caused by orbital cycles, as predicted by Milankovic, or
>> changes in the amount of long lifetime greenhouse gases like CO2.
>>
>> But it's more complicated even than that, because there are still more
>> components of the positive feedback loop to consider. One is the
>> different albedo, reflectivity, of ice compared with land or sea. As
>> more ice melts, more solar energy is absorbed instead of being reflected
>> back into space, thus amplifying the original increase in temperature
>> that melted the ice. Another is that as permafrost melts, it releases
>> methane trapped within it, and that too is a greenhouse gas. Another is
>> that as ocean floor temperatures increase, they too start to release
>> methane.
>>
>> Thus it is that changes in CO2 concentration, that on initial or
>> ignorant assessment might seem almost homeopathically small, can lead to
>> significant changes in temperature.
>>
>> Hence it is entirely consistent that when such changes as described
>> above are initiated by orbital changes leading to changes in insolation,
>> temperature tends to leads CO2, but that doesn't alter one jot the fact
>> that if you kick-start the same feedback loop from the other side by
>> increasing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, as man is doing, you
>> will get exactly the same results as you would get by increasing
>> insolation, global warming.
>
> [1] Spike wrote:
>
>>> Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
>>> temperature changes by thousands of years.
>
> Java Jive answered:
>
>> No
>
> But later he goes on to quote from an article that suggests Milankovitch
> cycles /do/ affect the CO2.
>
> So, which is it, Java Jive? Why are you tripping over yourself?

I'm not, both statements are correct, and you are either very confused
or more likely, as is becoming increasingly clear, being deliberately
obtuse in order to avoid losing another scientific argument; Milankovic
cycles in themselves only explain the coming and goings of ice ages, the
above description explains why temperature should lead CO2 during that
process.

> [2] At least you've explained why the Roman Warm Period accounts for the
> current rise in CO2.

FALSE! It doesn't:

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

"More recent research, including a 2019 analysis based on a much larger
dataset of climate proxies, has found that the putative period, along
with other warmer or colder pre-industrial periods such as the "Little
Ice Age" and "Medieval Warm Period," were regional phenomena, not
globally-coherent episodes.[7] That analysis uses the temperature record
of the last 2,000 years dataset compiled by the PAGES 2k Consortium
2017.[7]"

> [3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
> warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when
> their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is
> CO2 now keeping the planet cool?

Milankovic cycles determine that they should be; examine, say, Maureen
Raymo's graph already linked.

> [4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not
> unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101
> skills, such as they are...

On 26/11/2021 11:51, Java Jive wrote:
> On 26/11/2021 10:48, Spike wrote:

>> On 25/11/2021 16:52, Java Jive wrote:

>>> On 25/11/2021 15:44, Spike wrote:

>>>> On 25/11/2021 14:29, Java Jive wrote:

>>>>> I stated that ice ages, which you brought up, not me, were explained by
>>>>> Milankovic cycles.

>>>> Changes in the orbit pace ice ages, but the precise way the three
>>>> Milankovitch variations conspire to regulate the timing of
>>>> glacial-interglacial cycles *is* *not* *well* *known*.

>>> But well enough known to explain the recurring ice ages.

>> Nobody needed them explained, so it's a mystery why you jumped in with
>> Milankovitch.

> You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
> the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
> pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a
> predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
> climate change.

Your memory is slipping. You mentioned a good correlation between
temperature and CO2, and I mentioned Vostok as an example of where the
correlation is less than good.

Got you off banging on about Wuhan, though, didn't it.

>>>> Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
>>>> temperature changes by thousands of years.

>>> No,

>> Thanks.

>>>> I can see why you brought in Milankovitch deflection, because you don't
>>>> want to explain the embarrassing CO2 lag.

>>> Except that, to anyone that actually *UNDERSTANDS* the science, it's not
>>> embarrassing at all, because it fits predictions very well.

>> [1] Spike wrote:

>>>> Milankovitch *does* *not* explain why the CO2 changes lag the
>>>> temperature changes by thousands of years.

>> Java Jive answered:

>>> No

>> But later he goes on to quote from an article that suggests Milankovitch
>> cycles /do/ affect the CO2.

>> So, which is it, Java Jive? Why are you tripping over yourself?

> I'm not, both statements are correct

LOL.

>> [2] At least you've explained why the Roman Warm Period accounts for the
>> current rise in CO2.

> FALSE! It doesn't:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period

So when the Climate Change Industry puts out a rendition of a combusting
globe speckled in red splotches, we can say that Global Warming doesn't
exist because the warming wasn't global or even even.

You clearly have not researched for evidence that the RWP, DACP, MWP.
and LIA were actually global manifestations or manifestation of a
millennial cycle, or you wouldn't quote a Wikipedia entry as being
scientifically robust.

>> [3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
>> warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when
>> their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is
>> CO2 now keeping the planet cool?

> Milankovic cycles determine that they should be; examine, say, Maureen
> Raymo's graph already linked.

Why don't *you* examine Maureen Raymo's graph, and explain it?

>> [4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not
>> unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101
>> skills, such as they are...

> It's not a quote, it's my own description base on my own knowledge from
> S233 'Geology & The Environment' and a great deal of interested
> investigation since, and was intended to be merely a taster to give a
> flavour of the complexity of the process rather than a complete
> description, if you want that, go do some work for yourself, and look in
> the scientific literature.

Then your own 'description base' is missing something. Your research
appears to be poor.

The greater problem you have is that, at least in the cases of the Wuhan
virus and 'Climate Change', your writings give the strong impression of
your coming to a conclusion about the topic, and then wildly defending
it against all challenges, including using abuse and personal attacks,
deflection, ground-shifting, false arguments, self-aggrandisement, and
other tactics. That isn't the way of science, it's what propaganda-fed
ignorant schoolkids do to support 'climate change' - that is, shout down
the opposition. If their, and your, case was so well-founded, there
would be no need to shout.

I'll leave it as an exercise for your research skills to find out which
IPCC member admitted that 'climate change' wasn't about environmental
policy, it was about transfer of wealth. I take it you noted how many
times during COP26 you heard mention of '$100bn a year to poorer countries'.

And keep in mind that In the Dangerous Unprecedented Catastrophic
Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Code Red Emergency Alarm
Justice system, only the future is certain. The past is constantly being
revised.

--
Spike

On 27/11/2021 12:23, Spike wrote:
>
> On 26/11/2021 11:51, Java Jive wrote:
>>
>> You brought up ice-ages as if they were some golden cross to ward off
>> the evil vampire of having to believe in climate change, I merely
>> pointed out that through the mechanism of Milankovic cycles they were a
>> predictable and understandable phenomenon entirely consistent with
>> climate change.
>
> Your memory is slipping. You mentioned a good correlation between
> temperature and CO2, and I mentioned Vostok as an example of where the
> correlation is less than good.

But the good correlation is happening now, when greenhouse gases are
leading the feedback loop, not hundreds of thousands of years ago, when
temperature was leading it, so it was always a straw man rather than a
golden cross.

> Got you off banging on about Wuhan, though, didn't it.

You're still not producing any relevant *EVIDENCE* about that, nor
indeed about this, so no need.

>> FALSE! It doesn't:
>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Warm_Period
>
> So when the Climate Change Industry puts out a rendition of a combusting
> globe speckled in red splotches, we can say that Global Warming doesn't
> exist because the warming wasn't global or even even.
>
> You clearly have not researched for evidence that the RWP, DACP, MWP.
> and LIA were actually global manifestations or manifestation of a
> millennial cycle, or you wouldn't quote a Wikipedia entry as being
> scientifically robust.

Opinion stated as if it were fact, yet again unsupported by *EVIDENCE*.
Why am I not surprised!

>>> [3] Why were the three previous interglacials some 1.8 to 3.5 degC
>>> warmer than this one, with all its human activity and CO2 belching, when
>>> their CO2 levels were sensibly equal, peaking at 280 to 290 ppm? Why is
>>> CO2 now keeping the planet cool?
>
>> Milankovic cycles determine that they should be; examine, say, Maureen
>> Raymo's graph already linked.
>
> Why don't *you* examine Maureen Raymo's graph, and explain it?

I thought you said that my mentioning of Milankovic cycles was
irrelevant? If you claim enough knowledge to be able to declare them
irrelevant, why do I need to explain to you, when really there should be
nothing further to explain, that the graphs shows that previous
interglacials were predicted to be warmer by Milankovic's own calculations?

When are you going to produce some *EVIDENCE* for what you claim?

>>> [4] BTW, there's an effect missing from the above quote of yours. Not
>>> unsurprising, as it doesn't fit the narrative. Time to deploy your S101
>>> skills, such as they are...
>
>> It's not a quote, it's my own description base on my own knowledge from
>> S233 'Geology & The Environment' and a great deal of interested
>> investigation since, and was intended to be merely a taster to give a
>> flavour of the complexity of the process rather than a complete
>> description, if you want that, go do some work for yourself, and look in
>> the scientific literature.
>
> Then your own 'description base' is missing something. Your research
> appears to be poor.

Still no *EVIDENCE* for what you claim!

[Snip abuse showing that you've lost the substantive argument]

> I'll leave it as an exercise for your research skills to find out which
> IPCC member admitted that 'climate change' wasn't about environmental
> policy, it was about transfer of wealth. I take it you noted how many
> times during COP26 you heard mention of '$100bn a year to poorer countries'.

I leave it as an exercise for your research to discover what he actually
said in what context, which is rather different from what you've tried
to imply above.

> And keep in mind that In the Dangerous Unprecedented Catastrophic
> Anthropogenic Climate Change Global Heating Code Red Emergency Alarm
> Justice system, only the future is certain. The past is constantly being
> revised.

And keep in mind that due to the sustained efforts of bigoted and
dishonest idiots like you and the people you read online over more than
twenty years, that consequential lack of earlier effective action by
many governments, who allowed themselves to be conned thereby, means
that we've got twenty years' *EXTRA* emissions to deal with that we
could easily have avoided simply through people being honest.

Still no *EVIDENCE* for anything you claim, put up or shut up.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000
Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:

> On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
> > On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
> >> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
> >>> On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
>
> >>>> There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to
> >>>> model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the
> >>>> components being numerous and not all being known, and the level
> >>>> of their inputs are not known either. The current models, which
> >>>> run a tiny subset of the contributors to the climate, have
> >>>> predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even 'predicted' past
> >>>> climate. Clouds, for example, are not modelled - a set of
> >>>> standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed, and which,
> >>>> given their far greater effect on the climate than trace gasses,
> >>>> is astonishing.
>
> >>>> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel the
> >>>> need to make.
>
> >>> The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of our
> >>> uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate, it
> >>> doesn't call into question the scientific evidence supporting
> >>> AGW.
>
> >> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
>
> > Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do so
> > badly:
>
> > https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
>
> That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their line.
> What is it that they are afraid of?
>
> But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we don't
> know, we've got climate change sussed?
>
> That's a brave position to take.
>
> > The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse gas
> > emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called 'Climategate'
> > with denialist oil money from the Koch brothers to investigate the
> > CRU 'Climategate' findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the same
> > conclusions as CRU, and as a result even former denialists who were
> > on the Berkeley Earth team, such as statistical expert Steve
> > Mosher, now accept that global warming is happening, saying:
> > "What’s that mean? It means the CRU are not frauds. It means it’s
> > not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over temperature so that we
> > can focus on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2 will
> > warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it? What should we
> > do about it?”". Note the excellent correlation between CO2 and
> > temperature in their findings:
>
> > http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
>
> Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:
>
> "So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for your
> research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the planet".
> "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
>
> The other way goes like this:
>
> "The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to go
> along and present the picture of the plight of polar bears caused by
> climate change". "I can't do that, because polar bears are thriving".
> "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with your funding, you won't be
> able to go".
>
>

Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research, Burt?

On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:

> On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
>> > On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
>> >> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
>> >>> On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
>>
>> >>>> There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to
>> >>>> model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the
>> >>>> components being numerous and not all being known, and the
>> >>>> level of their inputs are not known either. The current
>> >>>> models, which run a tiny subset of the contributors to the
>> >>>> climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
>> >>>> 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
>> >>>> modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is
>> >>>> assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on the
>> >>>> climate than trace gasses, is astonishing.
>>
>> >>>> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel
>> >>>> the need to make.
>>
>> >>> The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of
>> >>> our uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate, it
>> >>> doesn't call into question the scientific evidence supporting
>> >>> AGW.
>>
>> >> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
>>
>> > Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do so
>> > badly:
>>
>> > https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
>>
>> That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their
>> line. What is it that they are afraid of?
>>
>> But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we don't
>> know, we've got climate change sussed?
>>
>> That's a brave position to take.
>>
>> > The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse
>> > gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called
>> > 'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the Koch brothers to
>> > investigate the CRU 'Climategate' findings, yet they came to
>> > *EXACTLY* the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
>> > former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
>> > statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global warming
>> > is happening, saying: "What’s that mean? It means the CRU are
>> > not frauds. It means it’s
>> > not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over temperature so that
>> > we can focus on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2
>> > will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it? What
>> > should we do about it?”". Note the excellent correlation
>> > between CO2 and temperature in their findings:
>>
>> > http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
>>
>> Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:
>>
>> "So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for
>> your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the
>> planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
>>
>> The other way goes like this:
>>
>> "The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to go
>> along and present the picture of the plight of polar bears caused
>> by climate change". "I can't do that, because polar bears are
>> thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with your funding, you
>> won't be able to go".
>>
>>
>
> Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research, Burt?

Why do you call him Burt?

On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>
> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
> >> > On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
> >> >> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
> >> >>> On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
> >>
> >> >>>> There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet to
> >> >>>> model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system, the
> >> >>>> components being numerous and not all being known, and the
> >> >>>> level of their inputs are not known either. The current
> >> >>>> models, which run a tiny subset of the contributors to the
> >> >>>> climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
> >> >>>> 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
> >> >>>> modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects is
> >> >>>> assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on the
> >> >>>> climate than trace gasses, is astonishing.
> >>
> >> >>>> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel
> >> >>>> the need to make.
> >>
> >> >>> The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results of
> >> >>> our uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's climate,
> >> >>> it doesn't call into question the scientific evidence
> >> >>> supporting AGW.
> >>
> >> >> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
> >>
> >> > Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do
> >> > so badly:
> >>
> >> > https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
> >>
> >> That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their
> >> line. What is it that they are afraid of?
> >>
> >> But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we don't
> >> know, we've got climate change sussed?
> >>
> >> That's a brave position to take.
> >>
> >> > The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse
> >> > gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called
> >> > 'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the Koch brothers to
> >> > investigate the CRU 'Climategate' findings, yet they came to
> >> > *EXACTLY* the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
> >> > former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
> >> > statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global warming
> >> > is happening, saying: "What’s that mean? It means the CRU are
> >> > not frauds. It means it’s
> >> > not a hoax. So let’s end the debate over temperature so that
> >> > we can focus on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2
> >> > will warm the planet. How much? What can we do about it? What
> >> > should we do about it?”". Note the excellent correlation
> >> > between CO2 and temperature in their findings:
> >>
> >> > http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
> >>
> >> Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two ways:
> >>
> >> "So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for
> >> your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the
> >> planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
> >>
> >> The other way goes like this:
> >>
> >> "The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to go
> >> along and present the picture of the plight of polar bears caused
> >> by climate change". "I can't do that, because polar bears are
> >> thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with your funding, you
> >> won't be able to go".
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research, Burt?
>
> Why do you call him Burt?

He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".

On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
>> > <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
>> >> > On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
>> >> >> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
>> >> >>> On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet
>> >> >>>> to model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system,
>> >> >>>> the components being numerous and not all being known, and
>> >> >>>> the level of their inputs are not known either. The current
>> >> >>>> models, which run a tiny subset of the contributors to the
>> >> >>>> climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
>> >> >>>> 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
>> >> >>>> modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects
>> >> >>>> is assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on
>> >> >>>> the climate than trace gasses, is astonishing.
>> >>
>> >> >>>> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel
>> >> >>>> the need to make.
>> >>
>> >> >>> The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results
>> >> >>> of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's
>> >> >>> climate, it doesn't call into question the scientific
>> >> >>> evidence supporting AGW.
>> >>
>> >> >> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
>> >>
>> >> > Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do
>> >> > so badly:
>> >>
>> >> > https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
>> >>
>> >> That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their
>> >> line. What is it that they are afraid of?
>> >>
>> >> But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we
>> >> don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
>> >>
>> >> That's a brave position to take.
>> >>
>> >> > The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse
>> >> > gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called
>> >> > 'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the Koch brothers
>> >> > to investigate the CRU 'Climategate' findings, yet they came
>> >> > to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
>> >> > former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
>> >> > statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global
>> >> > warming is happening, saying: "What�s that mean? It means
>> >> > the CRU are not frauds. It means it�s not a hoax. So
>> >> > let�s end the debate over temperature so that we can focus
>> >> > on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2 will warm
>> >> > the planet. How much? What can we do about it? What should we
>> >> > do about it?�". Note the excellent correlation between CO2
>> >> > and temperature in their findings:
>> >> >
>> >> > http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
>> >>
>> >> Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two
>> >> ways:
>> >>
>> >> "So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for
>> >> your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the
>> >> planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
>> >>
>> >> The other way goes like this:
>> >>
>> >> "The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to
>> >> go along and present the picture of the plight of polar bears
>> >> caused by climate change". "I can't do that, because polar bears
>> >> are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with your
>> >> funding, you won't be able to go".
>> >>
>> >
>> > Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research, Burt?
>> >
>>
>> Why do you call him Burt?
>
> He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".

So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his background?

On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT
Pamela <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
> >> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
> >> > <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
> >> >> On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
> >> >> > On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
> >> >> >> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
> >> >> >>> On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
> >> >> >>>>
> >> >> >>>> There isn't currently enough computing power on the planet
> >> >> >>>> to model the climate, due to its being a chaotic system,
> >> >> >>>> the components being numerous and not all being known, and
> >> >> >>>> the level of their inputs are not known either. The current
> >> >> >>>> models, which run a tiny subset of the contributors to the
> >> >> >>>> climate, have predicted nothing, and AFAICT have never even
> >> >> >>>> 'predicted' past climate. Clouds, for example, are not
> >> >> >>>> modelled - a set of standard conditions for cloud effects
> >> >> >>>> is assumed, and which, given their far greater effect on
> >> >> >>>> the climate than trace gasses, is astonishing.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>>> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might feel
> >> >> >>>> the need to make.
> >> >>
> >> >> >>> The above merely makes it difficult to predict the results
> >> >> >>> of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the earth's
> >> >> >>> climate, it doesn't call into question the scientific
> >> >> >>> evidence supporting AGW.
> >> >>
> >> >> >> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't do
> >> >> > so badly:
> >> >>
> >> >> > https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
> >> >>
> >> >> That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe their
> >> >> line. What is it that they are afraid of?
> >> >>
> >> >> But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we
> >> >> don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
> >> >>
> >> >> That's a brave position to take.
> >> >>
> >> >> > The science says we are warming the planet with our greenhouse
> >> >> > gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after so-called
> >> >> > 'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the Koch brothers
> >> >> > to investigate the CRU 'Climategate' findings, yet they came
> >> >> > to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions as CRU, and as a result even
> >> >> > former denialists who were on the Berkeley Earth team, such as
> >> >> > statistical expert Steve Mosher, now accept that global
> >> >> > warming is happening, saying: "What_s that mean? It means
> >> >> > the CRU are not frauds. It means it_s not a hoax. So
> >> >> > let_s end the debate over temperature so that we can focus
> >> >> > on the part of the debate that really matters, CO2 will warm
> >> >> > the planet. How much? What can we do about it? What should
> >> >> > we do about it?_". Note the excellent correlation between
> >> >> > CO2 and temperature in their findings:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
> >> >>
> >> >> Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two
> >> >> ways:
> >> >>
> >> >> "So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant for
> >> >> your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming the
> >> >> planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
> >> >>
> >> >> The other way goes like this:
> >> >>
> >> >> "The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you to
> >> >> go along and present the picture of the plight of polar bears
> >> >> caused by climate change". "I can't do that, because polar
> >> >> bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem with
> >> >> your funding, you won't be able to go".
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research, Burt?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Why do you call him Burt?
> >
> > He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
>
> So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
> background?

Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry", alleged
glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport holder, alleged
radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly through the medium of
contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,

On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:

> On Sun, 28 Nov 2021 11:03:15 GMT Pamela
> <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 21:15 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>> > On Sat, 27 Nov 2021 20:52:36 GMT Pamela
>> > <pamela.private.mailbox@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On 19:56 27 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>> >> > On Mon, 22 Nov 2021 09:18:47 +0000 Spike
>> >> > <Aero.Spike@mail.invalid> wrote:
>> >> >> On 21/11/2021 17:49, Java Jive wrote:
>> >> >> > On 21/11/2021 17:28, Spike wrote:
>> >> >> >> On 21/11/2021 17:22, Java Jive wrote:
>> >> >> >>> On 21/11/2021 17:15, Spike wrote:
>> >> >> >>>>
>> >> >> >>>> There isn't currently enough computing power on the
>> >> >> >>>> planet to model the climate, due to its being a chaotic
>> >> >> >>>> system, the components being numerous and not all being
>> >> >> >>>> known, and the level of their inputs are not known
>> >> >> >>>> either. The current models, which run a tiny subset of
>> >> >> >>>> the contributors to the climate, have predicted nothing,
>> >> >> >>>> and AFAICT have never even 'predicted' past climate.
>> >> >> >>>> Clouds, for example, are not modelled - a set of
>> >> >> >>>> standard conditions for cloud effects is assumed, and
>> >> >> >>>> which, given their far greater effect on the climate
>> >> >> >>>> than trace gasses, is astonishing.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>>> Please don't quote Wikipedia in any response you might
>> >> >> >>>> feel the need to make.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >>> The above merely makes it difficult to predict the
>> >> >> >>> results of our uncontrolled but live experiment on the
>> >> >> >>> earth's climate, it doesn't call into question the
>> >> >> >>> scientific evidence supporting AGW.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> It's not *difficult*, it's *impossible*.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Yet despite the "impossible" nature of the task, they don't
>> >> >> > do so badly:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > https://skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That group runs a blacklist of scientists that don't toe
>> >> >> their line. What is it that they are afraid of?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> But you're saying that although we don't know what it is we
>> >> >> don't know, we've got climate change sussed?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> That's a brave position to take.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > The science says we are warming the planet with our
>> >> >> > greenhouse gas emissions. Berkeley Earth was set up after
>> >> >> > so-called 'Climategate' with denialist oil money from the
>> >> >> > Koch brothers to investigate the CRU 'Climategate'
>> >> >> > findings, yet they came to *EXACTLY* the same conclusions
>> >> >> > as CRU, and as a result even former denialists who were on
>> >> >> > the Berkeley Earth team, such as statistical expert Steve
>> >> >> > Mosher, now accept that global warming is happening,
>> >> >> > saying: "What_s that mean? It means the CRU are not frauds.
>> >> >> > It means it_s not a hoax. So let_s end the debate over
>> >> >> > temperature so that we can focus on the part of the debate
>> >> >> > that really matters, CO2 will warm the planet. How much?
>> >> >> > What can we do about it? What should we do about it?_".
>> >> >> > Note the excellent correlation between CO2 and temperature
>> >> >> > in their findings:
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> > http://berkeleyearth.org/summary-of-findings
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Science is controlled through funding. It goes in one of two
>> >> >> ways:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "So, Professor James. we're offering you an open-ended grant
>> >> >> for your research centre to prove that a trace gas is warming
>> >> >> the planet". "Thanks, I'll get the team on it right away".
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The other way goes like this:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "The Copenhagem COP is coming up, we have the funds for you
>> >> >> to go along and present the picture of the plight of polar
>> >> >> bears caused by climate change". "I can't do that, because
>> >> >> polar bears are thriving". "Oh, I'm sorry, there's a problem
>> >> >> with your funding, you won't be able to go".
>> >> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > Are you saying that oil companies don't fund any research,
>> >> > Burt?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Why do you call him Burt?
>> >
>> > He used to use the posting name "Burton Bradstock".
>>
>> So you know him? He's an argumentative chappie. What's his
>> background?
>
> Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry", alleged
> glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport holder,
> alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly through the
> medium of contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,

Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on anything.

Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
diplomacy.

Anything else?

On 28/11/2021 16:41, Pamela wrote:
>
> On 15:23 28 Nov 2021, Bernie said:
>>
>> Late 70s, retired civile servant, worked for "The ministry", alleged
>> glittering career, alleged former diplomatic passport holder,
>> alleged radio amateur, enormous ego, communicates mainly through the
>> medium of contemporary dance, and lives in Torquay,
>
> Interesting. Civil servants often lack depth and believe their
> generalist background makes them suited to pronounce on anything.
>
> Spike/Burt must be in his second childhood because his ideas and
> arguments seem immature. And he's not showing much in the way of
> diplomacy.
>
> Anything else?

Judging by what we already know from above description and up thread, as
we suspected all along, zilch scientific knowledge.

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk