Predictions

[skookerasbil]

Hybrid train - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For combined steam and diesel locomotives, see Steam diesel hybrid locomotive.
A hybrid train is a locomotive, railcar or train that uses an onboard rechargeable energy storage system (RESS), placed between the power source (often a diesel engine prime mover) and the traction transmission system connected to the wheels.

Surplus energy from the power source, or energy derived from regenerative braking, charges the storage system. During acceleration, stored energy is directed to the transmission system, boosting that available from the main power source. In existing designs, the storage system can be electric traction batteries, or a flywheel. The energy source is diesel, liquified petroleum gas, or hydrogen (for fuel cells) and transmission is direct mechanical, electric or hydrostatic.

Diesel electric locomotives have high potential for energy savings when using dynamic braking, which use the traction motors as generators to stop the train. Without a way to recover and store the braking energy, these engines currently have no option other than to dump it into the sky as heat, using large electric heating elements and high velocity cooling fans.

The locomotive you insisted was a hybrid is not one of those, you dishonest old goat.

GE AC6000CW locomotives are among the most powerful in the world, however, of the 6250 horsepower, only 1,000 is derived from the electric motors. AC motors simply provide more traction than similar DC engines. Fuel tanks are about 3,000 gallons. People like Old Rocks think that the electric engine drives the diesel engine thus moving the train. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Old Rocks thinks the fuel tanks are filled with electricity = absurd, of course..

 

[Zander]

Nothing at all. However, what we have seen in Australia, Sri Lanka, Columbia, and the US thus far is pretty indictutive of an active year.

indictutive?? really??

Your spelling is quite indicative of your intellect. You sir, are a ******* moron.

 

[daveman]

GE AC6000CW locomotives are among the most powerful in the world, however, of the 6250 horsepower, only 1,000 is derived from the electric motors.

I don't know what you mean by that.

AC motors simply provide more traction than similar DC engines.

And AC is easier to vary than DC.

Fuel tanks are about 3,000 gallons. People like Old Rocks think that the electric engine drives the diesel engine thus moving the train. In fact, the exact opposite is true. Old Rocks thinks the fuel tanks are filled with electricity = absurd, of course..

OR doesn't think much at all, really.

 

[skookerasbil]

 

[skookerasbil]

Told you naive fools the science doesnt matter................

April 5, 2011
UN IPCC: Climate Change Analyst or Advocate?
By Lee Lane

The 2010 election brought another shift in the seesaw struggle to control U.S. climate policy. As one result, the new House Republican budget zeros out U.S. funding of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Meanwhile, the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee has launched a series of hearings on the IPCC process.
The IPCC does periodic “assessment reports”. These reports, within the realm of climate policy, largely define conventional wisdom. So the Republican challenge to the IPCC is nothing less than an attempt to storm the intellectual commanding heights of global discourse on the subject. The timing of this move is also portentous. The most recent of these reports, the fourth, AR4 in IPCC argot, was released in 2007, and the fifth is now in progress.

Much of the coming battle will rage around climate science; yet, the crux of the dispute actually lies elsewhere. It centers on the IPCC’s relentless campaign to push greenhouse gas (GHG) control as the main response to climate change. The part of the IPCC that handles economics and politics, the so-called Working Group 3 (WG-3) spearheads this campaign. Surprisingly this part of the IPCC has so far largely escaped controversy.

WG-3 has insisted, with ever increasing dogmatism, that GHG controls, which must be global to be effective, will be both cheap and agreeable to all states. Thus, in its 2007 report, WG-3 writes warmly about the virtues of international agreements on climate. It goes on to catalogue many technologies that supposedly, were controls adopted by all states, might lower emissions at relatively modest cost. The problem is that the conditions needed for the world to adopt such measures, let alone for them to be cheap, simply do not exist.

In fact, WG-3’s own earlier Third Assessment Report (TAR), albeit buried deep in the body of the report, raised grave doubts about the realism of this prospect. The TAR noted, for instance, that a durable global pact on GHG control appears to be highly improbable. It also pointed out that countries might need to use trade sanctions as a means to compel unwilling states to take part in such an agreement; this step might, of course, violate global trade rules. The costs of a global trade war might add quite a hefty sum to the price tag for building a GHG control regime. Indeed, the TAR also conceded that, for developed countries, like the U.S., the costs of inducing or compelling other states to take part in GHG controls might well exceed the environmental benefits of an agreement.

Clearly, these points from the third report clash with the blithe optimism of WG-3’s fourth report. So, did something happen between the two reports to dispel the concerns raised? To the contrary, five more years of futile climate talks had added to the evidence that consensus on controls was absent.

The AR4, itself, hints at points that refute its own claims. It concedes, for instance, that weak legal and political institutions may preclude countries like China and India from using the more cost effective policy tools. But, if they must use high cost policy tools, then emission controls may not be cheap after all, and adopting them might yield net costs. This point, WG-3 studiously avoids making.WG-3 now has new leadership. This change may nudge it toward more analysis and less advocacy. Many factors of the IPCC process, though, are likely to impede reform.

In any case, even a reformed WG-3 could provide only limited guidance to U.S. policy. America is a wealthy country with a temperate climate. As such, it has less to fear from climate change than do most other countries; at the same time, it has more to lose from stringent GHG controls. No UN body will ever produce analysis attuned to unique U.S. national interests. Congress, in assessing the IPCC, should, therefore, begin to focus on the actual core of the problem. That core is not climate science; it is WG-3’s decision to become an advocate.


Lee Lane is a Visiting Fellow at the Hudson Institute.

RealClearScience - UN IPCC: Climate Change Analyst or Advocate?

Talk about sticking it in the eye's the the fcukking k00ks!!!!!

 

[polarbear]

Nothing at all. However, what we have seen in Australia, Sri Lanka, Columbia, and the US thus far is pretty indictutive of an active year.

indictutive?? really??

Your spelling is quite indicative of your intellect. You sir, are a ******* moron.

Kudos to You

Well said, Sir, spoken straight from my heart. For a while I felt a bit lonely here calling a spade a spade and am glad to see You share my views of un-American nut cases like this one.
He`s been trying to ridicule me because I`m German, yet I am more American than he`ll ever be.
Skookersasbil asked me to visit this thread here, so ...Hi guys from Canada.
Once in a while it`s interesting to take a look into the kitchen where most of this "Global Warming" dog`s breakfast has been cooked up...and a dog`s breakfast it is...
I already posted some of it in the "Oh my God, CO2 is bringing the coral reefs to the brink of extinction",...but it might be fun to post some of it here as well.
I found this little gem, with the "Way back" search engine which digs up web pages and publications the author has deleted, presuambly to save face...:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980114152259/http://mloserv.mlo.hawaii.gov/publish/steve/VolcCO2.htm

This Paper was originally published in: Mauna Loa Revealed: Structure, Composition, History, and Hazards Geophysical Monograph 92, American Geophysical Union, 1995.

ABSTRACT. A continuous 37 year record of the quiescent CO2 outgassing of Mauna Loa volcano was derived from atmospheric measurements made 6 km downslope of the summit caldera at Mauna Loa Observatory. The volcanic plume is sometimes trapped in the temperature inversion near the ground at night and transported downslope to the observatory

So the data which was forwarded by "climatologists" to the IPCC was gathered right off the slopes of a vulcano which spews tons of CO2 and sulfur dioxide ..:

The identified or potential nearby, nighttime sources of CO2, in approximate order of their influence were:
1. Volcanic emissions from the Mauna Loa summit. These were the primary CO2 sources, typically producing increases of several ppm.
2. Volcanic emissions from Kilauea volcano. CO2, SO2, and other volcanic emissions came from the nearby Kilauea region [Greenland et al., 1985; Connor et al., 1988] southeast of Mauna Loa at altitudes between sea level and 1200 m. This source was active intermittently in the 1960s and 1970s, and was virtually continuous after 1982.

And here are some rather amusing insights into "the state of the art, (ridiculous) instrumentation" they have been using all these years to alarm the public...:

The distributions were made up of the two components identified earlier; one arising from sources having only positive delta CO2, and the other arising from "noise"

2. Instrument noise. The SIO analyzer output was subject to occasional periods of excessive noise and drift primarily due to ageing and deterioration of vacuum tubes in the power supply, amplifier, and thermal regulation circuits. Locations of the analyzer and room temperature control apparatus were changed several times during the program to reduce the thermal drift of the analyzer. The decision to flag suspect periods as either an instrument malfunction or due to natural variability was made by the observer

3. Line voltage and frequency fluctuations. These caused a corresponding shift in the analyzer output that could appear as an abrupt or gradual drift, or a high frequency noise in the SIO data. Most events were presumed to be recognized by the observer

4. Radio frequency noise. In the 1960's, radio transmitters at the observatory site occasionally produced a high frequency noise on the CO2 trace.

The next step in calculating delta CO2 was to apply a correction to those periods in the NOAA 1-minute data when the analyzer signal went off-scale, as illustrated in the top trace of Fig. 2. The NOAA analyzers had a range of about 50 ppm, and a manual offset adjustment was periodically made to keep the output voltage approximately centered in this range during background CO2 conditions. A strong volcanic plume having excess CO2 greater than 25 ppm above background caused the analyzer output to saturate at a constant maximum voltage. This occurred during 72 measurements in 1984, 23 in 1985, 17 in 1986, 5 in 1987, and one each in 1976 through 1981.

"approximately"..."was presumed" etc etc...
In so many words, whatever "results" were reported by this garbage science using garbage "instrumentaion" was left up entirely to the discretion, honesty and integrity of the operator...
and we know just how 'honest" this hockey stick science has been so far.

 

[skookerasbil]

And ummmm..........why does the science not matter for dick? Because over the last few years, the public has taken a peek at how bad their wallet will get slammed by following the doomsday pronouncements of the environmental progressives. Sticker shock always sucks.

So.......while the environemntal "real" scientists lay on the doomsday scenario thicker and heavier by the day, seems the public has taken on the attitude of "MEH". Sure all the public is concerned about the evidences from the "real" scientists.........and every poll clearly displays that. But when the poll references the mega-costs to the average household, the response is INVARIABLY................

fcukk you assholes


Education is a beautiful thing...........and the American public has recently taken in some of the k00k idealistic ideas to "solve the problem".......as presented by this lunatic below who provides guidelines as if it were as easy as taking ut the trash.



Taken from a member of the Kyoto Action Committee ( ie: a fcukking enviro-k00k)......how to fight global warming.............


Actions You Can Take

1. Convert our lighting to compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) (this is THE most important action, and sometimes referred to as the “18-second solution to global warming” i.e., the time needed to change a light bulb.) (The electricity savings pays for the new bulbs.)Translation = liberals think there is an easy solution to EVERYTHING

2. Re-program ourselves to simply turn electrical appliances off when we are not immediately using them.

3. If our refrigerators are not rated energy ‘A’ or certified as EnergyStar, buy new ones that are rated the most energy efficient. (The electricity savings pays for the new frig.) Translation>> Go out and spend lots of $$$

4. If possible, switch our electricity provider to one offering the highest percentage of ‘green’ electricity production from wind, solar, and geothermal renewable sources Translation>>Go out and spend mega $$ for "green energy technology"

5. Keep our cars in top operating condition for the best gas mileage (regularly check tire pressures, change air-filters, avoid both quick starts and idling engines while waiting.) Translation>> Easy for liberals because most dont owrk and have plenty of time on their hands

6. Reduce our car use by using other modes of transportation such as public transport, car pooling for commutes and shopping, biking, and walking. (At the same time this helps us lose weight and be healthier). Translation>> Need I reference "Brave New World"?

7. When we buy a new car, choose one that has the best fuel mileage for our needs (today that’s a hybrid, but soon it will be an electric). Translation>> Sell your car and go buy a mega-expensive electric car for $45,000.00

8. Insulate our homes well (install double- or triple-pane windows; tape or caulk gaps around doors, windows, and exhausts; have professionals install insulation in walls, floors, and ceilings). Translation>> Go out and spend lots of $$

9. Maintain our space heating temperature at or below 68 F (20C) during the winter, and air-conditioning at or above 81 F (27C) during the summer. (Tip: Always close off rooms that are not in use, such as spare bedrooms.) Translation>> Be wiling to freeze our asses off in winter and bake in summer

10. Recycle, Recycle, Recycle… metal items, paper and boxes, glass, plastic.

11. Cook our meals from scratch using, as much as possible, organic, regionally-grown vegetables, fruits, and meats. Translation>> Again.....easy to do for liberals, most of whom dont work much and have all the time in the world to prepare food.

12. Alternate our meal themes between vegetarian, fish, and meat (favor first poultry and eggs, then pork, and only occasionally beef). OK.....whatever you say s0n!!!!


When it comes to solving global warming, “WE” are the solution


Why Climate Legislation Failed In The USA: Global Affairs - WCW INSIGHT










Indeed........the "green economy" is a fcukking joke, emerging at the pace of a snail.........or slower actually. People dont have a pot to pee in and these jerkoffs want us buying electric cars and windmills for the tops of our houses..........or solar panel roofs which cost well over 60K ( In New York.......and its a scam anyway because despite the tax credit, if you take it, you are then not eleigible for any future carbon credits) and take over 15 YEARS for it to be economically prudent.


Meanwhile..............Congress hasnt spoken a single solitary word about climate legislation for 2 years



all of which is why, the omnipotent Captain Awesome can say with 100% certainty.........with help from his hysterical little pal.................

 

[skookerasbil]

Make no mistake.............jerkoffs like Old Rocks, Rolling Thunder et. al. are devout Maoists who want the state in control of everything, including your freedom. Globalist asshole pricks who despise capitalism and who are uber fcukking miserable due to their fcukked up personal decisions leading to their subsequent current lot in life......... hyper-focused to fcukk you over and everybody like you who is successful.

Thankfully..........they are part of the vast fringe minority ( the proof of which is that there is DICK going on in terms of climate change legislation.......its not even debatable).......trolling in the nether-regions of the internet, having numbers conversations on a daily basis.


I guess thats cool for some people.......................

 

[RollingThunder]

Getting back to the real world....here's some actual research results on the issue of the accuracy of the current scientific climate models.

Climate Models Look Good When Predicting Climate Change

(To view the full study on climate models, please visit:
http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~reichler/publications/papers/Reichler_07_BAMS_CMIP.pdf.)

University of Utah News Center - News Release
April 2, 2008
(excerpts)

A new study by meteorologists at the University of Utah shows that current climate models are quite accurate and can be valuable tools for those seeking solutions on reversing global warming trends. Most of these models project a global warming trend that amounts to about 7 degrees Fahrenheit over the next 100 years. The study titled “How Well do Coupled Models Simulate Today’s Climate?” is due to be published this Friday in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. In the study, co-authors Thomas Reichler and Junsu Kim from the Department of Meteorology at the University of Utah investigate how well climate models actually do their job in simulating climate. To this end, they compare the output of the models against observations for present climate. The authors apply this method to about 50 different national and international models that were developed over the past two decades at major climate research centers in China, Russia, Australia, Canada, France, Korea, Great Britain, Germany, and the United States. Of course, also included is the very latest model generation that was used for the very recent (2007) report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

“Coupled models are becoming increasingly reliable tools for understanding climate and climate change, and the best models are now capable of simulating present-day climate with accuracy approaching conventional atmospheric observations,” said Reichler. “We can now place a much higher level of confidence in model-based projections of climate change than in the past.” The many hours of studying models and comparing them with actual climate changes fulfills the increasing wish to know how much one can trust climate models and their predictions. Given the significance of climate change research in public policy, the study’s results also provide important response to critics of global warming. Earlier this year, working group one of the IPCC released its fourth global warming report. The University of Utah study results directly relate to this highly publicized report by showing that the models used for the IPCC paper have reached an unprecedented level of realism. Another important aspect of the research is that climate models built in the U.S. are now some of the best models worldwide. Increased efforts in the U.S. over the past few years to build better climate models have paid off, and according to the authors’ measure of reliability, one of the U.S. models is now one of the leading climate models worldwide.

 

[RWatt]

Once in a while it`s interesting to take a look into the kitchen where most of this "Global Warming" dog`s breakfast has been cooked up...and a dog`s breakfast it is...
I already posted some of it in the "Oh my God, CO2 is bringing the coral reefs to the brink of extinction",...but it might be fun to post some of it here as well.
I found this little gem, with the "Way back" search engine which digs up web pages and publications the author has deleted, presuambly to save face...:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980114152259/http://mloserv.mlo.hawaii.gov/publish/steve/VolcCO2.htm

This Paper was originally published in: Mauna Loa Revealed: Structure, Composition, History, and Hazards Geophysical Monograph 92, American Geophysical Union, 1995.



So the data which was forwarded by "climatologists" to the IPCC was gathered right off the slopes of a vulcano which spews tons of CO2 and sulfur dioxide ..:

The identified or potential nearby, nighttime sources of CO2, in approximate order of their influence were:
1. Volcanic emissions from the Mauna Loa summit. These were the primary CO2 sources, typically producing increases of several ppm.
2. Volcanic emissions from Kilauea volcano. CO2, SO2, and other volcanic emissions came from the nearby Kilauea region [Greenland et al., 1985; Connor et al., 1988] southeast of Mauna Loa at altitudes between sea level and 1200 m. This source was active intermittently in the 1960s and 1970s, and was virtually continuous after 1982.

And here are some rather amusing insights into "the state of the art, (ridiculous) instrumentation" they have been using all these years to alarm the public...:

The distributions were made up of the two components identified earlier; one arising from sources having only positive delta CO2, and the other arising from "noise"

2. Instrument noise. The SIO analyzer output was subject to occasional periods of excessive noise and drift primarily due to ageing and deterioration of vacuum tubes in the power supply, amplifier, and thermal regulation circuits. Locations of the analyzer and room temperature control apparatus were changed several times during the program to reduce the thermal drift of the analyzer. The decision to flag suspect periods as either an instrument malfunction or due to natural variability was made by the observer

3. Line voltage and frequency fluctuations. These caused a corresponding shift in the analyzer output that could appear as an abrupt or gradual drift, or a high frequency noise in the SIO data. Most events were presumed to be recognized by the observer

4. Radio frequency noise. In the 1960's, radio transmitters at the observatory site occasionally produced a high frequency noise on the CO2 trace.

The next step in calculating delta CO2 was to apply a correction to those periods in the NOAA 1-minute data when the analyzer signal went off-scale, as illustrated in the top trace of Fig. 2. The NOAA analyzers had a range of about 50 ppm, and a manual offset adjustment was periodically made to keep the output voltage approximately centered in this range during background CO2 conditions. A strong volcanic plume having excess CO2 greater than 25 ppm above background caused the analyzer output to saturate at a constant maximum voltage. This occurred during 72 measurements in 1984, 23 in 1985, 17 in 1986, 5 in 1987, and one each in 1976 through 1981.

"approximately"..."was presumed" etc etc...
In so many words, whatever "results" were reported by this garbage science using garbage "instrumentaion" was left up entirely to the discretion, honesty and integrity of the operator...
and we know just how 'honest" this hockey stick science has been so far.

Mauna Loa is just one station measuring CO2.

There are hundreds of measuring sites:
Trends in Carbon Dioxide

 

[skookerasbil]

Evidently..........the public isnt impressed with climate computer models.......

 

[polarbear]

Once in a while it`s interesting to take a look into the kitchen where most of this "Global Warming" dog`s breakfast has been cooked up...and a dog`s breakfast it is...
I already posted some of it in the "Oh my God, CO2 is bringing the coral reefs to the brink of extinction",...but it might be fun to post some of it here as well.
I found this little gem, with the "Way back" search engine which digs up web pages and publications the author has deleted, presuambly to save face...:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980114152259/http://mloserv.mlo.hawaii.gov/publish/steve/VolcCO2.htm

This Paper was originally published in: Mauna Loa Revealed: Structure, Composition, History, and Hazards Geophysical Monograph 92, American Geophysical Union, 1995.



So the data which was forwarded by "climatologists" to the IPCC was gathered right off the slopes of a vulcano which spews tons of CO2 and sulfur dioxide ..:

The identified or potential nearby, nighttime sources of CO2, in approximate order of their influence were:
1. Volcanic emissions from the Mauna Loa summit. These were the primary CO2 sources, typically producing increases of several ppm.
2. Volcanic emissions from Kilauea volcano. CO2, SO2, and other volcanic emissions came from the nearby Kilauea region [Greenland et al., 1985; Connor et al., 1988] southeast of Mauna Loa at altitudes between sea level and 1200 m. This source was active intermittently in the 1960s and 1970s, and was virtually continuous after 1982.

And here are some rather amusing insights into "the state of the art, (ridiculous) instrumentation" they have been using all these years to alarm the public...:

The distributions were made up of the two components identified earlier; one arising from sources having only positive delta CO2, and the other arising from "noise"

2. Instrument noise. The SIO analyzer output was subject to occasional periods of excessive noise and drift primarily due to ageing and deterioration of vacuum tubes in the power supply, amplifier, and thermal regulation circuits. Locations of the analyzer and room temperature control apparatus were changed several times during the program to reduce the thermal drift of the analyzer. The decision to flag suspect periods as either an instrument malfunction or due to natural variability was made by the observer

3. Line voltage and frequency fluctuations. These caused a corresponding shift in the analyzer output that could appear as an abrupt or gradual drift, or a high frequency noise in the SIO data. Most events were presumed to be recognized by the observer

4. Radio frequency noise. In the 1960's, radio transmitters at the observatory site occasionally produced a high frequency noise on the CO2 trace.

The next step in calculating delta CO2 was to apply a correction to those periods in the NOAA 1-minute data when the analyzer signal went off-scale, as illustrated in the top trace of Fig. 2. The NOAA analyzers had a range of about 50 ppm, and a manual offset adjustment was periodically made to keep the output voltage approximately centered in this range during background CO2 conditions. A strong volcanic plume having excess CO2 greater than 25 ppm above background caused the analyzer output to saturate at a constant maximum voltage. This occurred during 72 measurements in 1984, 23 in 1985, 17 in 1986, 5 in 1987, and one each in 1976 through 1981.

"approximately"..."was presumed" etc etc...
In so many words, whatever "results" were reported by this garbage science using garbage "instrumentaion" was left up entirely to the discretion, honesty and integrity of the operator...
and we know just how 'honest" this hockey stick science has been so far.

Mauna Loa is just one station measuring CO2.

There are hundreds of measuring sites:
Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Who cares about these "hundreds of..."....?
It was the crappy Mauna Loa Station that came up with the Keeling Curve, long before these other 'hundreds of other stations" even existed.

Without the Keeling curve the largest part of the data set establishing the trend the Keeling curve is gone...vanished...and alarmists don`t have a pot to piss in...!

Once in a while it`s interesting to take a look into the kitchen where most of this "Global Warming" dog`s breakfast has been cooked up...and a dog`s breakfast it is...
I already posted some of it in the "Oh my God, CO2 is bringing the coral reefs to the brink of extinction",...but it might be fun to post some of it here as well.
I found this little gem, with the "Way back" search engine which digs up web pages and publications the author has deleted, presuambly to save face...:
http://web.archive.org/web/19980114152259/http://mloserv.mlo.hawaii.gov/publish/steve/VolcCO2.htm

This Paper was originally published in: Mauna Loa Revealed: Structure, Composition, History, and Hazards Geophysical Monograph 92, American Geophysical Union, 1995.



So the data which was forwarded by "climatologists" to the IPCC was gathered right off the slopes of a vulcano which spews tons of CO2 and sulfur dioxide ..:

The identified or potential nearby, nighttime sources of CO2, in approximate order of their influence were:
1. Volcanic emissions from the Mauna Loa summit. These were the primary CO2 sources, typically producing increases of several ppm.
2. Volcanic emissions from Kilauea volcano. CO2, SO2, and other volcanic emissions came from the nearby Kilauea region [Greenland et al., 1985; Connor et al., 1988] southeast of Mauna Loa at altitudes between sea level and 1200 m. This source was active intermittently in the 1960s and 1970s, and was virtually continuous after 1982.

And here are some rather amusing insights into "the state of the art, (ridiculous) instrumentation" they have been using all these years to alarm the public...:

The distributions were made up of the two components identified earlier; one arising from sources having only positive delta CO2, and the other arising from "noise"

2. Instrument noise. The SIO analyzer output was subject to occasional periods of excessive noise and drift primarily due to ageing and deterioration of vacuum tubes in the power supply, amplifier, and thermal regulation circuits. Locations of the analyzer and room temperature control apparatus were changed several times during the program to reduce the thermal drift of the analyzer. The decision to flag suspect periods as either an instrument malfunction or due to natural variability was made by the observer

3. Line voltage and frequency fluctuations. These caused a corresponding shift in the analyzer output that could appear as an abrupt or gradual drift, or a high frequency noise in the SIO data. Most events were presumed to be recognized by the observer

4. Radio frequency noise. In the 1960's, radio transmitters at the observatory site occasionally produced a high frequency noise on the CO2 trace.

The next step in calculating delta CO2 was to apply a correction to those periods in the NOAA 1-minute data when the analyzer signal went off-scale, as illustrated in the top trace of Fig. 2. The NOAA analyzers had a range of about 50 ppm, and a manual offset adjustment was periodically made to keep the output voltage approximately centered in this range during background CO2 conditions. A strong volcanic plume having excess CO2 greater than 25 ppm above background caused the analyzer output to saturate at a constant maximum voltage. This occurred during 72 measurements in 1984, 23 in 1985, 17 in 1986, 5 in 1987, and one each in 1976 through 1981.

"approximately"..."was presumed" etc etc...
In so many words, whatever "results" were reported by this garbage science using garbage "instrumentaion" was left up entirely to the discretion, honesty and integrity of the operator...
and we know just how 'honest" this hockey stick science has been so far.

Mauna Loa is just one station measuring CO2.

There are hundreds of measuring sites:
Trends in Carbon Dioxide

Who cares about these "hundreds of..."....?
It was the crappy Mauna Loa Station that came up with the Keeling Curve, long before these other 'hundreds of other stations" even existed.

Without the Keeling curve the largest part of the data set establishing the trend the Keeling curve is gone...vanished...and alarmists don`t have a pot to piss in...!

And where exactly are these other "hundreds of other stations"...?
Are they in locations where the sampled air is not contaminated, as it is on Mauna Loa...or as it is in the Arctic, right next to a Diesel Power plant which runs 24/7....and right next to the runway where all the Hercs land supplying the station....?

I`ve been there,....done that... and it was part of my job responsibility to calibrate the instruments...supply power to the "lab" etc etc
And You....?
All you "know" is internet crap

Show me individual data from these stations....!
**** Your "averages" which are nothing but a cherry picked bunch of lies...as they are when it comes
to "average temperature"....
To this day "climate science" refuses to show the data set, and has deleted most of that set after the British Parliament initiated a fraud investigation

 

[Old Rocks]

BiPolar and Kooky, what a pair of trolls. Wonder if either one will ever post anything that indicates any trace of intellect?

 

[Immanuel]

Well, we are not half way through the year yet, but they certainly seem to be on the mark.

Weather disasters likely to rise - UPI.com

BRUSSELS, Jan. 25 (UPI) -- Though 2010 was a record year in terms of the financial and human loss from natural disasters, trends suggest things could get worse, a Belgian report found.

The Center for Research on Epidemiology of Disasters, at that Universite catholique de Louvain in Brussels, found that the 373 natural disasters in 2010 killed more than 296,800 people and caused about $110 billion in damages.


GALLERY: A year after the Haiti quake

Margareta Wahlstrom, the U.N. special envoy for disasters, said it's critical for local governments to use climate information in urban planning.

Weather patterns El Nino and La Nina, which can trigger heavy rains and volatile weather conditions, are expected to linger for the next 25 years, the World Meteorological Organization predicts.

Wahlstrom said weather-related disasters are likely to rise because of complications tied to global climate change. A heat wave during the summer caused more than 50,000 fatalities in Russia and the January 2010 earthquake in Haiti killed more than 222,000



Read more: Weather disasters likely to rise - UPI.com

What do you think weather has to do with Earthquakes?

Actually, to be honest with you people say that there is such a thing as "earthquake weather". Typically, they say that after an earthquake hits. As a kid I thought earthquake weather was the hot days of late summer, early fall and it was explained to me that the cause of major quakes was that the earth would expand in the heat of the day and then as temperatures cooled down and the earth contracted something would "slip".

That day in October of 89, when those of us in the SF Bay Area were preparing to enjoy the World Series game between the A's and the Giants was just one of those days.

Of course, earthquakes do happen during all kinds of weather, so the term earthquake weather simply is not reliable, but, who cares?

What is Earthquake Weather?

It’s a close, oppressive day, perhaps hot and humid, with clouds appearing overhead and no rain in sight. People may look at such a day as typical earthquake weather, a term used to describe weather patterns that suggest an earthquake might be forthcoming. Actually there’s no such thing as earthquake weather, and a general study of the pattern and occurrences of earthquakes show they occur in all seasons, all temperatures, all times of the day, and in many different weather patterns.

Immie

 

[daveman]

BiPolar and Kooky, what a pair of trolls. Wonder if either one will ever post anything that indicates any trace of intellect?

So...you can't answer the questions, huh?

Typical.

 

[RWatt]

Who cares about these "hundreds of..."....?
It was the crappy Mauna Loa Station that came up with the Keeling Curve, long before these other 'hundreds of other stations" even existed.

Mauna Loa agrees with other monitoring stations.

Eg here are four monitoring station records including Mauna Loa from the early 70s:

Without the Keeling curve the largest part of the data set establishing the trend the Keeling curve is gone...vanished...and alarmists don`t have a pot to piss in...!

We still have the keeling curve. But we have so many other records too. They are all consistent.

So the data which was forwarded by "climatologists" to the IPCC was gathered right off the slopes of a vulcano which spews tons of CO2 and sulfur dioxide ..:
And here are some rather amusing insights into "the state of the art, (ridiculous) instrumentation" they have been using all these years to alarm the public...:

So you claim the trend is just emissions of the Mauna Loa volcano? This doesn't make sense. A site at the South Pole and in Alaska show the same trend. It can't be the Mauna Loa volcano or any other local cause.

And where exactly are these other "hundreds of other stations"...?
Are they in locations where the sampled air is not contaminated, as it is on Mauna Loa...or as it is in the Arctic, right next to a Diesel Power plant which runs 24/7....and right next to the runway where all the Hercs land supplying the station....?

So all these stations are by happy coincidence next to completely different emitters of CO2 that produce the exact same trend over time? No thank you, that's a ludicrous idea. Quite clearly these sites are measuring the actual increase in global CO2 concentration over time. We even have satellites detecting the same ~2ppm increase year on year that these hundreds of ground, tower and aircraft measurements are also detecting.

It's collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt.

If you want education, read this:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/mauna-loa-volcano-co2-measurements-advanced.htm

 

[skookerasbil]

BiPolar and Kooky, what a pair of trolls. Wonder if either one will ever post anything that indicates any trace of intellect?

So...you can't answer the questions, huh?

Typical.

Dave bro..........we dominate this place.

Polar.........West..........Ian............et. al.

Any time we publically humiliate the k00ks = automatically resorting to the "retard" or "zero intellect" line. For my whole life, the standard dynamic when debating an issue with a far lefty.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I predict that Warmers will continue to post weather stories as evidence of their "Theory" and never ever once in a billion years post a lab experiment showing us exactly how their "theory" works

 

[skookerasbil]

I predict that Warmers will continue to post weather stories as evidence of their "Theory" and never ever once in a billion years post a lab experiment showing us exactly how their "theory" works

 

[polarbear]

Who cares about these "hundreds of..."....?
It was the crappy Mauna Loa Station that came up with the Keeling Curve, long before these other 'hundreds of other stations" even existed.

Mauna Loa agrees with other monitoring stations.

Eg here are four monitoring station records including Mauna Loa from the early 70s:

Without the Keeling curve the largest part of the data set establishing the trend the Keeling curve is gone...vanished...and alarmists don`t have a pot to piss in...!

We still have the keeling curve. But we have so many other records too. They are all consistent.

So the data which was forwarded by "climatologists" to the IPCC was gathered right off the slopes of a vulcano which spews tons of CO2 and sulfur dioxide ..:
And here are some rather amusing insights into "the state of the art, (ridiculous) instrumentation" they have been using all these years to alarm the public...:

So you claim the trend is just emissions of the Mauna Loa volcano? This doesn't make sense. A site at the South Pole and in Alaska show the same trend. It can't be the Mauna Loa volcano or any other local cause.

And where exactly are these other "hundreds of other stations"...?
Are they in locations where the sampled air is not contaminated, as it is on Mauna Loa...or as it is in the Arctic, right next to a Diesel Power plant which runs 24/7....and right next to the runway where all the Hercs land supplying the station....?

So all these stations are by happy coincidence next to completely different emitters of CO2 that produce the exact same trend over time? No thank you, that's a ludicrous idea. Quite clearly these sites are measuring the actual increase in global CO2 concentration over time. We even have satellites detecting the same ~2ppm increase year on year that these hundreds of ground, tower and aircraft measurements are also detecting.

It's collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt.

If you want education, read this:
Mauna Loa is a volcano

"It's collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt."

I`ve just shown you what kind crap equipment this "science" is using to generate these results...wanna see it again...:

2. Instrument noise. The SIO analyzer output was subject to occasional periods of excessive noise and drift primarily due to ageing and deterioration of vacuum tubes in the power supply, amplifier, and thermal regulation circuits. Locations of the analyzer and room temperature control apparatus were changed several times during the program to reduce the thermal drift of the analyzer. The decision to flag suspect periods as either an instrument malfunction or due to natural variability was made by the observer

3. Line voltage and frequency fluctuations. These caused a corresponding shift in the analyzer output that could appear as an abrupt or gradual drift, or a high frequency noise in the SIO data. Most events were presumed to be recognized by the observer

4. Radio frequency noise. In the 1960's, radio transmitters at the observatory site occasionally produced a high frequency noise on the CO2 trace.

The next step in calculating delta CO2 was to apply a correction to those periods in the NOAA 1-minute data when the analyzer signal went off-scale, as illustrated in the top trace of Fig. 2. The NOAA analyzers had a range of about 50 ppm, and a manual offset adjustment was periodically made to keep the output voltage approximately centered in this range during background CO2 conditions. ]

And You "counter" with a silly graph of 3 other stations which happen to overlap with Mauna Loa...

Well I have news for You...:
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record from Point Barrow, Alaska

Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Record from Point Barrow, Alaska


Since 9March 1982 , weekly air samples have been collected in 5-L evacuated glass flask pairs. Flasks are returned to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography

So, to begin the graph that you show with 1973 CO2 data from Barrow is a blatant lie...!!!

Also the samples are not analyzed by a different lab and " collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt."
That also is a blatant lie as You can see...the samples are sent to the same people and the same lab using the very same crap equipment..."collaborating" their wild ass guess CO2 "science"...

Let`s check on the next one shall we,,,....:

Atmospheric CO2 from Flask Air Samples at Cape Matatula, American Samoa

Atmospheric CO2 from Flask Air Samples at Cape Matatula, American Samoa

Atmospheric CO2 samples were collected at approximately weekly intervals. Samples are collected in 5-L evacuated glass flasks, and then returned to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography

The average of unflagged data for the first full year of measurements (1982)

And your con-artist "science" graph shows 1976 Samoa CO2 data..!!!...and at the South Pole they`ve also been sending their samples to the very same Mr. (Alarmist) Keeling ,...

And you call that "It's collaborated beyond any semblance of reasonable doubt."...
"collaborated beyond a reasonable doubt"...by the same indidvidual who get`s to "flag" und "un-flag" the data as it suits him


Which shows how sweet **** all you know how REAL & hard Science is conducted.
By the way the term "beyond a of reasonable doubt." is a legal term, ...in REAL SCIENCE you have to do a lot better than that...
If I were to apply Your idiot climate "science" principles of "proof" which pronounced O.J. Simpson innocent to this CO2 crap, you`ld all be shit out of luck pronouncing mankind guilty "warming" the globe.

Try abstaining from smoking the weeds you liberals want to legalize...it may help de-confusing whatever little brains you got