Socialists in a Panic

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
By anomalies they mean the amount of change. They establish a base line and plot the changes. All of them do it that way, including yours. That graph does indeed show cooling.
Like I said, you misread graphs. The positive anomalies show increased temps. the negatives show cooler temps. The general trend of the anomalies in that graph is positive which means increasing temps.


That reporter was mistaken. The fantastic mileage is attained through low wind resistance, low weight and efficient engine. Batteries and all the accompanying linkages would be far too much weight. Here's a link to the original prototype with full descriptions:
VW 1 Liter Car
Why did you not post that link then instead of the one with the error in it? Your posts are becoming more and more ridiculous.
 
Last edited:

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Yes, they aren't temps, they're anomalies. Changes. They track the degree of change by day, or month, or year. When the graph line goes down, it is cooling, when the graph line goes up, it's warming.
Now you have it, finally.

And this is the kind of manipulation that's been going on:
The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero « Watts Up With That?
I'm fine with waiting to see what the data actually says. Till then, I am sitting where I am on the issue.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,721
12,938
113
Low Earth Orbit
I've heard alot about the "younger drier ass" and the "little ice age" being refered to but not one explaination as to WHY they occured.

Using those events to compare to today is ludicris without knowing why they occured.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
They adjust upwards to remove the bias of UHI???? 8O

Adjustments go in both directions. See the histogram I posted? There are as many positive adjustments as negative adjustments. You have one station, that histogram is for a set of over 5000 stations. They adjust upwards when changes in measuring protocol introduce a negative bias.
 
Last edited:

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Evidence?
You want evidence that the polar bears have survived previous warm periods??? They're here aren't they?

That's just your speculation. The true part is that we don't know all the species and that we are killing them off.
And that's just nonsense.

And that guy was more credible? Why should I trust his word either?
You could check where he got the data (NASA). Or did you even watch it?

I actually went back to see what you said. Apparently you didn't.
Oh yes I did. Here is my exact statement, copied and pasted verbatim:
And you're correct about cold killing off critters. Somewhere I read that cooling is the main culprit of all mass extinctions.
You might want to go back and check again.

Evidence?
Again, do you have any evidence or do we just trust you? You were the one moaning about trusting alarmists. Because you oppose alarmists means you and your info can be trusted?
You want evidence from me that the mass extinction of the dinosaurs occurred, and that the last ice age caused species to go extinct? 8O

So you say. So far we've seen precious little from you except hearsay and opinion.
What you've seen from me is the evidence, graphs that show the temperature swings of the last 10,000 years. I think you're just in denial.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Like I said, you misread graphs. The positive anomalies show increased temps. the negatives show cooler temps. The general trend of the anomalies in that graph is positive which means increasing temps.
Are you deliberately being obtuse? The anomalies are described as degrees C and are graffed in tenths of a degree gradients. The graph records changes in relation to the base line, in other words, the actual temperature change is plotted on it. If it was a graph of the rate of cooling it could not be stated as degrees C. IT would have to be degrees C per time unit (eg. per century, or per decade). Neither my graphs (except for one) nor yours do that. You need to learn to read graphs properly.

Why did you not post that link then instead of the one with the error in it? Your posts are becoming more and more ridiculous.
Because I was showing you a real neat little car that's coming on the market. The older prototype isn't coming on the market so what would have been rediculous is showing you that.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
I've heard alot about the "younger drier ass" and the "little ice age" being refered to but not one explaination as to WHY they occured.

Using those events to compare to today is ludicris without knowing why they occured.
Well then you haven't been paying attention.

The Younger Dryas is believed to have been caused by the massive melt of the last ice age glaciers that deposited so much fresh water into the northern hemisphere oceans that it disrupted the currents that convey warm water north.

The Little Ice Age was caused by solar variations, including a reduction to practically no sunspot activity that affected the sun's magnetic field which affected incoming cosmic ray particles which affected clouds thus causing global cooling. This coincided with the regular 1500(+-) solar cycle that happened along just then. And if that wasn't enough, there was a massive volcanic eruption that added greatly to the cooling effect.
 

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
Adjustments go in both directions. See the histogram I posted? There are as many positive adjustments as negative adjustments. You have one station, that histogram is for a set of over 5000 stations. They adjust upwards when changes in measuring protocol introduce a negative bias.
In e-mail 1255477545.txt Phil Jones mentions what a good job Lucie Vincent did on homogeneity adjustments at Environment Canada.
> > In the papers, I've always said that homogeneity adjustments are
> > best produced by NMSs. A good example of this is the work by Lucie
> > Vincent in Canada. Here we just replaced what data we had for the
> > 200+ sites she sorted out.
According to GEDS Lucie Vincent is indeed still at work in Environment Canada. If Phil calls her adjustments a good job I'm curious to see how the adjustments differ from the original raw data - and if the original data still exists. We do have a protocol for adjustments and homogenization here in Canada, but in light of the revelations from climategate and specificaly the comments from Jones, can we trust them? Are the changes legit?
Several years ago, a database of long-term and homogenized temperatures was created for the analysis of climate change in Canada. Using a technique based on regression models, the annual means of the daily maximum and minimum temperatures were tested for “relative homogeneity” with respect to surrounding stations. Monthly and daily adjustments were derived from the regression models and were applied to create homogenized temperature datasets at 210 locations across the country. The causes of inhomogeneities were mainly due to station relocation and change in observing time.

A Second Generation of Homogenized Temperature is currently under development. The new homogenized datasets are prepared for a greater number of stations (336 stations). Series are extended to cover the period 1900-2008 as much as possible by joining the observations of two or three nearby locations. New procedures are applied for adjusting the cold bias in the daily minimum temperatures introduced by the redefinition of the climatological in 1961 at synoptic stations. Newly developed techniques based on regression models and surrounding stations are also considered for homogeneity assessment and adjustment of the discontinuities due to station relocation. The methodologies used to generate the new homogenized temperatures will be presented along with the impact of the adjustments on climate trends.
https://www1.cmos.ca/Amsoft Web Data/upload/abstracts114/3031archive.html
Cold bias?

Jones approving of adjustments in Canada, suspicious, unwarrented adjustments in Aussie, can we trust any of them any more?
Now, I want to be clear here. The blatantly bogus GHCN adjustment for this one station does NOT mean that the earth is not warming. It also does NOT mean that the three records (CRU, GISS, and GHCN) are generally wrong either. This may be an isolated incident, we don’t know. But every time the data gets revised and homogenized, the trends keep increasing. Now GISS does their own adjustments. However, as they keep telling us, they get the same answer as GHCN gets … which makes their numbers suspicious as well.
(I know you didn't read it before so here's the link again: The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero « Watts Up With That?)
 
Last edited:

Extrafire

Council Member
Mar 31, 2005
1,300
14
38
Prince George, BC
It isn't just socialists who were in a panic, there's also the big money people who didn't want their golden goose killed off.

Saved - the trillion-pound trade in carbon

The city of Copenhagen 'is a crime scene tonight, with the guilty men and women fleeing to the airport'. So said John Sauven of Greenpeace UK after the climate summit broke up. And he is right.

This is the biggest heist in history. As they poured carbon over snow-covered Denmark from their gas-guzzling jets, world leaders were congratulating themselves on securing a deal which will make their backers and financiers a trillion pounds a year. These riches will come from buying and selling permits, the so-called 'carbon credits' which allow industry and electricity generators in developed countries to emit carbon dioxide.

Forget 'Big Oil' - this is 'Big Carbon' making the most of a 'business opportunity' that was created by the first climate treaty at Kyoto in 1997.

The frenzied negotiations we have just seen were never about 'saving the planet'. They were always about money. At stake was this new 'climate change industry' which last year ripped off £129billion from the global economy and is heading for that trillion-pound bonanza by 2020 - but only if the key parts of the Kyoto treaty could be renewed.


With the treaty due to expire by 2012, unless it was replaced, the money tree would fail. Hence, all the power and vested interests of big business were brought into play, stoking up the panic over climate change to create an atmosphere where the parties could keep the money flowing.


Carbon Trading is barely 13 years old yet the scale of the industry is astonishing. Overall control lies with an obscure committee created by Kyoto, The Clean Development Mechanism Executive. It issues firms with the 'golden tickets' known as Certified Emission Reductions (CERs).

At Kyoto, Western governments set targets to cut emissions. In order to achieve this, they set 'caps' on the amount of CO2 a company can produce.


However, if they go over these limits, they may buy permits from firms who have not used up their quotas.

The developing world is not subject to the same caps as the West so they can generate CERs which are then traded by banks.


The actual emissions don't change, it's merely a matter of how much you have to pay for them. For example, in 2006, the NHS spent £6million on carbon permits to keep patients warm.

This was the real business in Copenhagen last week. The game was given away by the head of carbon markets for Merrill Lynch, Abyd Karmali - who is also president of the Carbon Markets and Investors Association.



As campaigners worried about the prospect of the talks failing, Karmali was happily explaining that the envoys would probably decide to extend the 'Kyoto Protocol' even if they could not reach an agreement on emission cuts. And it is those words which revealed what was really going on.

The carbon permits come mainly from rich industrialists in the Third World and state enterprises in China, created out of mythical savings in carbon emissions.


This is precisely what is happening in the west-India state of Gujarat, where the giant Tata conglomerate - which is closing down the Corus steel works in Redcar - is building a giant new coal-fired power plant.

It is four times the size of the proposed Kingsnorth power station in Kent, to which the Greens so violently objected.


Tata's new plant, which is the same design as Kingsnorth, will increase India's carbon emissions by 643million tons over its lifetime, and produce in a year CO2 equivalent to an eighth of the entire UK electricity industry.

Yet because it is more efficient than conventional plants, it is deemed to reduce the average carbon emissions of India's electricity generation system per unit of electricity supplied.


By this convoluted reasoning, not only does it qualify for cheap, green development loans from the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, it will be given over £500million in free carbon credits by the UN to be sold, via brokers and financiers who all take their cuts. They will be bought by the likes of British electricity generators.

That is but one example of the insane system created by the Kyoto treaty, which was renewed in Copenhagen last week.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1237235/ANALYSIS-Saved--trillion-pound-trade-carbon.html#ixzz0aIlmVuOi
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
You want evidence that the polar bears have survived previous warm periods??? They're here aren't they?
Nope. Evidence that they survived much warmer periods than this for as long as this.

And that's just nonsense.
So you don't think species have been killed off or that we don't know all the species? We only know of about 2 millions species and we are still discovering more. The latest ones I heard of are deep water ocean species. As for species being killed off:

List of extinct birds - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of extinct mammals - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of extinct butterflies - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tasmanian tiger; extinct since about 1935
Caspian Tiger; extinct since about 1970
St. Helena Mountain Bush; sometime in the 19th century due to human encroachment
St. Helena Olive same reason for extinction and hasn't been seen since 1994
Macoun’s Shining Moss hasn't been seen in Ontario since the last half of the 19th century


  • [SIZE=+1]Passenger Pigeon[/SIZE], last known individual, "Martha", died in September 1914 in the Cincinnati Zoo, Ohio. [click here]
  • [SIZE=+1]Carolina Parakeet[/SIZE], last known individual died in September 1914 in the Cincinnati Zoo, Ohio. [click here]
  • [SIZE=+1]Great Auk[/SIZE], last known pair in the world seen & shot at Eldey Rock off Iceland June 3 1844
  • [SIZE=+1]Labrador Duck[/SIZE], last specimen taken in 1875
  • [SIZE=+1]Heath Hen[/SIZE], extinct 1932
  • [SIZE=+1]Bachman's Warbler[/SIZE], though not known for certain this species is probable to be extinct
  • [SIZE=+1]Eskimo Curlew[/SIZE], last known early 1960s
  • [SIZE=+1]Dusky Seaside Sparrow[/SIZE], last known 1980 Yeah, it's all nonsense. :roll:




You could check where he got the data (NASA). Or did you even watch it?
It isn't the data, it's people's interpretation of the data that I find iffy; on both sides if the issue.


Oh yes I did. Here is my exact statement, copied and pasted verbatim:
You might want to go back and check again.
*shrugs*


You want evidence from me that the mass extinction of the dinosaurs occurred, and that the last ice age caused species to go extinct? 8O
Nope.

What you've seen from me is the evidence, graphs that show the temperature swings of the last 10,000 years. I think you're just in denial.
Nope. I just find your interpretations to be nuts.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
From post #357:
By anomalies they mean the amount of change. They establish a base line and plot the changes. All of them do it that way, including yours. That graph does indeed show cooling.
yet post #358:
Yes, they aren't temps, they're anomalies. Changes. They track the degree of change by day, or month, or year. When the graph line goes down, it is cooling, when the graph line goes up, it's warming.
And you say I am confused? roflmao
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Over the weekend I was listening to National Public Radio. I am not sure if Canadians are familiar with this but it is basically non-profit radio.

So, they had a panel on the Copenhagen summit and a woman there, not from the US, was bashing the United States and President Obama in particular. Basically she said that the deal and what needed to be done was already established and all Obama had to do was sit down and sign it. She was upset that Obama wanted to change things and negotiate privately with other nations. She was demanding that the US sign a legally binding document right then and there that was determined by the powers that be which basically calls for the US to pay under developed nations and that is that. She also bashed the US and called for the Obama Administration to stop bullying China and India.

Can you believe that? The US bullying China?! We are in no position to bully China or India for that matter. This is outright pandering to China by the Climate Change folks in charge because they know darn right well that China will NEVER bow down to any Climate Group demands.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,508
9,718
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Over the weekend I was listening to National Public Radio. I am not sure if Canadians are familiar with this but it is basically non-profit radio.

So, they had a panel on the Copenhagen summit and a woman there, not from the US, was bashing the United States and President Obama in particular. Basically she said that the deal and what needed to be done was already established and all Obama had to do was sit down and sign it. She was upset that Obama wanted to change things and negotiate privately with other nations. She was demanding that the US sign a legally binding document right then and there that was determined by the powers that be which basically calls for the US to pay under developed nations and that is that. She also bashed the US and called for the Obama Administration to stop bullying China and India.

Can you believe that? The US bullying China?! We are in no position to bully China or India for that matter. This is outright pandering to China by the Climate Change folks in charge because they know darn right well that China will NEVER bow down to any Climate Group demands.


You know, if all the Foreign Aid given out by the U.S.A. currently was to
stop being called Foreign Aid, and would from this day forward be
called Copenhagen Whatever or Green Bucks, etc....would that
make anybody happy? Chances are that billions of dollars are
already being sent out to most of the nations that have their
hands out anyway....and that isn't being counted as they
criticize your nation, and mine too. :canada:
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
You know, if all the Foreign Aid given out by the U.S.A. currently was to
stop being called Foreign Aid, and would from this day forward be
called Copenhagen Whatever or Green Bucks, etc....would that
make anybody happy? Chances are that billions of dollars are
already being sent out to most of the nations that have their
hands out anyway....and that isn't being counted as they
criticize your nation, and mine too. :canada:

Absolutely, and it is not just the US that they are trying to shake down, it is all the nations considered Western Nations. Europe, Canada, the US are all in the gun sights for these nations with their hands out. They want BIG BUCKS... they demand BIG BUCKS. They want DEEP CUTS so that any western nation that goes over MUST PAY DEARLY to under developed nations like China. Can you imagine Canada having to pay China hundreds of millions of dollars to boost their economy?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Cold bias?

Yes, cold bias. Changing the measuring procedures for minimum temperature can introduce a cold bias, it could also introduce a warm bias. In this case, it introduced a cold bias, and that needs to be accounted for when the data you have is not treated in the same fashion consistently.
(I know you didn't read it before so here's the link again: The Smoking Gun At Darwin Zero « Watts Up With That?)

I have read about this one station, including the content on Anthony's site.

As I said, the analysis I linked to examined the complete record used by CRU in their initial sorting of GHCN data, and found that the homogenization procedure produces as many positive adjustments as negative adjustments. One single station is meaningless, and you're ignoring (if you take Eschenbach's explanation only) that Australia's BOM comes to the same conclusions. You can read all about their homogenization process in these papers and at the BOM website (you really should read these):
http://134.178.63.141/amm/docs/1996/torok.pdf
http://go2.wordpress.com/?id=725X13...//reg.bom.gov.au/amm/docs/2004/dellamarta.pdf
Australia’s high-quality climate change datasets

Again, the histogram shows that the homogenization is not biased towards any magnitude, or sign of change. Very inconvenient for those claiming fraud. The data does not agree.
 

Ron in Regina

"Voice of the West" Party
Apr 9, 2008
26,508
9,718
113
Regina, Saskatchewan
Absolutely, and it is not just the US that they are trying to shake down, it is all the nations considered Western Nations. Europe, Canada, the US are all in the gun sights for these nations with their hands out. They want BIG BUCKS... they demand BIG BUCKS. They want DEEP CUTS so that any western nation that goes over MUST PAY DEARLY to under developed nations like China. Can you imagine Canada having to pay China hundreds of millions of dollars to boost their economy?


I recently read about a steel mill in Britain. With the Cap&Trade thing it
was being monetarily punished. The company changed hands a couple
of times and is now owned by a company in India (I think maybe "Tata.").
OK....I'm a bit rust on the details, recently was about a week or two back
that I read about this....

If Tata closes the steel mill in Britain, it'll get paid huge money because it
is reducing carbon emissions in a Tier 1 (First World....whatever) nation,
and will put about 2,000 people out of work. That's good for the environment.

If Tata relocates this steel mill to India, it'll get paid huge money because
it is creating employment in a developing nation. If it builds the same
Steel Mill in India that it closed in Britain, and pays its new Indian
Employees whatever the going rate for a fair wage in India is,
it'll also save millions in wages annually. The same plant,
now in India, will produce the same steel, and the same
Emissions, but'll be located in a Developing Nation.

Environmentally....what has been gained? I guess in theory, the new plant
will be a new plant and might be a bit more efficient (emission wise) &
it'll have to conform to the emission standards of India & not Britain....
Are India's emission standards more stringent than Britain's?
I have no idea, but I somehow doubt it, as India wouldn't have
to conform to as tight of standards being an developing
nation and all, like China. Really makes you think
about Tata now becoming an environmental
Hero for this maneuver. Kind'a Trippy, eh? :-?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I recently read about a steel mill in Britain. With the Cap&Trade thing it
was being monetarily punished. The company changed hands a couple
of times and is now owned by a company in India (I think maybe "Tata.").
OK....I'm a bit rust on the details, recently was about a week or two back
that I read about this....

If Tata closes the steel mill in Britain, it'll get paid huge money because it
is reducing carbon emissions in a Tier 1 (First World....whatever) nation,
and will put about 2,000 people out of work. That's good for the environment.

If Tata relocates this steel mill to India, it'll get paid huge money because
it is creating employment in a developing nation. If it builds the same
Steel Mill in India that it closed in Britain, and pays its new Indian
Employees whatever the going rate for a fair wage in India is,
it'll also save millions in wages annually. The same plant,
now in India, will produce the same steel, and the same
Emissions, but'll be located in a Developing Nation.

Environmentally....what has been gained? I guess in theory, the new plant
will be a new plant and might be a bit more efficient (emission wise) &
it'll have to conform to the emission standards of India & not Britain....
Are India's emission standards more stringent than Britain's?
I have no idea, but I somehow doubt it, as India wouldn't have
to conform to as tight of standards being an developing
nation and all, like China. Really makes you think
about Tata now becoming an environmental
Hero for this maneuver. Kind'a Trippy, eh? :-?
Yup. Gotta love big business and politics in conjunction. The planet and its contents get screwed royally and a few bank accounts benefit hugely.