Canadian Media still whining about Kyoto

[shoggoth]

No evidence...right..

Evidence of what?

I'll give you there is no proof of man-made global warming. But I do think there is evidence. It's not like owl-made global warming, which truely does have no evidence going for it.

[B. Max]

No evidence...right..

Evidence of what?

I'll give you there is no proof of man-made global warming. But I do think there is evidence. It's not like owl-made global warming, which truely does have no evidence going for it.

Here is something to actually compare.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/warming_by_design.htm

[jdobbin]

Here is something to actually compare.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/warming_by_design.htm

One location doesn't give the whole picture.

[B. Max]

Here is something to actually compare.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/warming_by_design.htm

One location doesn't give the whole picture.

But why the distortion. That's the picture.

[jdobbin]

But why the distortion. That's the picture.

As far as I've heard or seen, the climate scientists say you have to look at several locations over many years using several different ways of measuring the change. I see no distortion.

[geoffrey]

I thought the Liberal plan totally sucked when they initiated it. I think what the government should have been doing was to help build the east-west power grid to enable hydro to come from Newfoundland and Quebec and Manitoba to power hungry Ontario. It would go a long way to reducing emissions.

And smog. Good idea. I'd vote for that.

I think that all new neighborhoods be set up with geo-thermal heating and cooling. Done at the start of a new housing development it saves costs. And for homeowners, they would save energy costs in perpetuity (so long as the earth core remains warm).

I want to call you a loony idiot on this one... but I'll give ya a chance . How much does this cost per house? And how exactly does it work, do I just put a big tube down to hell and let the demons warm my house with Liberal values? Seriously though...

I think that setting California emission standards would go a long way to meeting the commitment of Kyoto.

On cars? Yes.

A lot of the key to the success of Kyoto is to try and tie it current development so that is a job creator as well.

Jobs created by government policy are rather dangerous... it means we now as a society have burden to sustain such people. You get things like Health Canada, which Duceppe accurately described as a big waste of mone last campaign.

[jdobbin]

And smog. Good idea. I'd vote for that.

I want to call you a loony idiot on this one... but I'll give ya a chance . How much does this cost per house? And how exactly does it work, do I just put a big tube down to hell and let the demons warm my house with Liberal values? Seriously though...

On cars? Yes.

Jobs created by government policy are rather dangerous... it means we now as a society have burden to sustain such people. You get things like Health Canada, which Duceppe accurately described as a big waste of mone last campaign.

I think east-west power benefit all of Canada in the same way that a national highway or railway do. It means job and economic ties and there is an economic need that is being fulfilled as well as an environmental need.

As far as geo-thermal, you are not far off the mark:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heating

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/earthpower/who_would_benefit.shtml

http://www.hydro.mb.ca/saving_with_ps/home...comparisons.pdf

It is expensive to put in for existing homes but for an entire sub-division under construction it means that no natural gas pipeline needs to be laid. All the houses come with geo-thermal heating and cooling and everyone makes up the cost of the geo-thermal installation within a few years. Zero emissions.

For Alberta, it means more gas to export elsewhere because existing homes and buildings won't be giving up gas anytime soon.

Government jobs are a waste. Government investment is not. It took the genius of Eisenhower to see the pay-off the Interstate highway program. It took him 62 days to take a convoy of military supplies across the U.S. during the war because of poor roads and other delays. A huge chunk of each state's economic growth comes as a result of the federal government's investment.

[shoggoth]

Here is something to actually compare.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/warming_by_design.htm

But why the distortion. That's the picture.

Who is doing the distortion though? Junkscience.com or GISS? Or perhaps there is simply a misunderstanding on junkscience.com's part.

The links given on the the junkscience.com page to the two New York Central Park Station graphs which start in 1820 are dead links. It looks like in the last 2 years GISS has moved it's pages around. Here are the images as they are located now:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/...num_neighbors=1

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/csci/csc...&data_set=2

Notice the graphs on the Junkscience.com site start in 1820 while the GISS graphs start in 1880. Two possibilities for this discrepancy:

1) the GISS graphs once started in 1820, but they have since changed them to start in 1880.

2) the GISS graphs never started in 1820, and Junkscience.com modified thier copies of the graphs to contain earlier data [side note: It wouldn't be the first time a contrarian site has modified data from an authority, without mentioning it has been modified when presenting it - a good example can be found in Table 1 here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html which is attributed to the U.S. Department of Energy, but the table has been modified to contain the additional column "Man-made additions" which contains flat out wrong data. It gives the misleading impression that the that DoE are saying only 15% of the recent co2 rise is anthropogenic, when in fact that figure (along with others on that page) has actually been plucked out of who knows where]

Another interesting problem: The New York Meteorological Observatory in Central Park, which is the source of the data shown on the GISS site, was established in 1868. So while the post-1968 data can have come from this station, where did the pre-1868 data in the junkscience.com graphs come from?

Therefore these accusations made by junkscience.com are not as clear cut as they seem. There is all the possibility that junkscience.com is doing the distorting, or has made an error rather than GISS doing that. Unless junkscience.com can show:

1) There were reliable 1820-1860 measurements taken in the New York Central Park area

2) These measurements are accurate enough that they can be combined with post 1868 New York Meteorological Observatory measurements to give a meaningful trend.

Then they simply don't have a case based on what they have presented.

Even if we assume GISS did have in fact cut their graphs from 1820's onwards to 1880's onwards since 2004, junkscience.com would not only have to show that this wasn't done for a good data reason, but would also have to show it was done deliberately to mislead. For example perhaps GISS decided to show a plot for only the last century of data because 100 years is a nice round number - there's nothing wrong with that and it's not "distorting data. Especially when you realise that the "Common Sense Climate Index" is not about hyping warming at all.

That is the GISS page on the "Common Sense Climate Index" is not about making the case for global warming at all. Neither does junkscience.com's graphs, assuming they are reliable, make a case against global warming. This is a single station giving measurements for a single region.

The Common Sense Climate Index is a measure of whether local temperature change is pronounced enough to be noticable to people living in the a local area. As the site says: "If the Index reaches and consistently maintains a value of 1 or more, the climate change should be noticeable to most people who have lived at that location for a few decades."

So even if it was warmer 150 years ago in New York Central Park, all the CSCI is telling us is (correctly) that people back then would have defintely noticed the later drop in temperature. The CSCI is not an "index giving a completely false impression" as Junkscience.com claim.

[Argus]

I thought the Liberal plan totally sucked when they initiated it. I think what the government should have been doing was to help build the east-west power grid to enable hydro to come from Newfoundland and Quebec and Manitoba to power hungry Ontario. It would go a long way to reducing emissions. I think that all new neighborhoods be set up with geo-thermal heating and cooling. Done at the start of a new housing development it saves costs. And for homeowners, they would save energy costs in perpetuity (so long as the earth core remains warm).

I think that setting California emission standards would go a long way to meeting the commitment of Kyoto.

A lot of the key to the success of Kyoto is to try and tie it current development so that is a job creator as well.

And do you think it is even slightly possible that we could initiate all this and reach our Kyoto goals within five years?

[jdobbin]

And do you think it is even slightly possible that we could initiate all this and reach our Kyoto goals within five years?

No, that's why the Liberals were to blame for not even bothering to start plans that would have helped save Canadians money on their energy costs and benefited regions across the country through an energy grid.

By that same measure, the Conservatives have pushed energy and emissions so far into the future so as to not benefit anyone here except in doddering old age.

[Argus]

And do you think it is even slightly possible that we could initiate all this and reach our Kyoto goals within five years?

No, that's why the Liberals were to blame for not even bothering to start plans that would have helped save Canadians money on their energy costs and benefited regions across the country through an energy grid.

By that same measure, the Conservatives have pushed energy and emissions so far into the future so as to not benefit anyone here except in doddering old age.

I am not thrilled with the Conservatives' plans. I think a solid, long-term plan is needed, however. If you decide you need to cut emissions by a large amount you can't do it overnight. The Liberals had 20 years to cut by 6% and look how that turned out. So if we're to cut by 50% I would guess we actually need 50 years.

At the same time, there are thing they could do sooner than that which would not only encourage cleaner air but improve our energy distribution system, and cut demand on power systems.

But snivelling about them "abandoning Kyoto" seems idiotic, at best. And that is largely what the Liberals and the liberal media have been engaged in.

[jdobbin]

I am no thrilled with the Conservatives' plans. I think a solid, long-term plan is needed, however. If you decide you need to cut emissions by a large amount you can't do it overnight. The Liberals had 20 years to cut by 6% and look how that turned out. So if we're to cut by 50% I would guess we actually need 50 years.

At the same time, there are thing they could do sooner than that which would not only encourage cleaner air but improve our energy distribution system, and cut demand on power systems.

But snivelling about them "abandoning Kyoto" seems idiotic, at best. And that is largely what the Liberals and the liberal media have been engaged in.

I haven't been sniveling about Kyoto commitments not met by the Conservatives. I just don't think their plans meet the here and now for job creation and energy savings as well as emission controls.

I certainly didn't think the time frame was going to be met by the Liberal plan.

I am hoping for a commitment from the Feds to build the east-west energy grid. I don't think that there's a province that wouldn't benefit from it. Too much of our plans are still north-south but Ontario is starved for energy.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Let Ontario choose its own path. Lets not have the feds do it for them. They can build power plants themselves.

[jdobbin]

Let Ontario choose its own path. Lets not have the feds do it for them. They can build power plants themselves.

And they are. But it won't be enough.

An energy power grid is the equivalent of a national highway or a national railway. Private companies don't have the resources to do this type of national program. Their focus is north-south links which is good regionally but is not a how a nation is built.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Let Ontario choose its own path. Lets not have the feds do it for them. They can build power plants themselves.

And they are. But it won't be enough.

An energy power grid is the equivalent of a national highway or a national railway. Private companies don't have the resources to do this type of national program. Their focus is north-south links which is good regionally but is not a how a nation is built.

The North American Power Grid has existed for some time now. I simply would not support the use of federal funds to benefit Ontario. There is no net benefit to me here in Alberta through the use of those funds to subsidize a provincial problem. Let them eat cake ! While there are freezing in the dark !

[Argus]

Let Ontario choose its own path. Lets not have the feds do it for them. They can build power plants themselves.

Ontario is being run by idiots, at the moment. They ran a campaign promising to close down the coal plants. Once in power they realized doing that would deprive people of lights (how odd) so now they're in a flux, trying to figure out what to do. If they restyle their current coal plants to burn clean coal the industry says that will make them 96% cleaner. Sounds good to me.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Hey Argus what do you think of the new nuclear power plant design that eats dead rods for breakfast? I am in favour of coal myself, because it is plentiful and cheap. As a matter of fact I plan on converting to coal for residential heat out here in the wilds of Alberta.

[jdobbin]

The North American Power Grid has existed for some time now. I simply would not support the use of federal funds to benefit Ontario. There is no net benefit to me here in Alberta through the use of those funds to subsidize a provincial problem. Let them eat cake ! While there are freezing in the dark !

Alberta benefits from the grid too. Surprisingly, Alberta has had energy shortages over the last few years when it comes to hydro. Lines from B.C. would ensure that Alberta's economy keeps humming along.

It isn't just an Ontario problem.

[B. Max]

Notice the graphs on the Junkscience.com site start in 1820 while the GISS graphs start in 1880. Two possibilities for this discrepancy:

1) the GISS graphs once started in 1820, but they have since changed them to start in 1880.

2) the GISS graphs never started in 1820, and Junkscience.com modified thier copies of the graphs to contain earlier data [side note: It wouldn't be the first time a contrarian site has modified data from an authority, without mentioning it has been modified when presenting it -

Actually they are showing you how adding another additional 80 years changes the perspective of the graph, which it does, and they are showing you where they got the extra 80 years. Also interesting to note is that the two graphs are anchored at different points.

a good example can be found in Table 1 here http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html which is attributed to the U.S. Department of Energy, but the table has been modified to contain the additional column "Man-made additions" which contains flat out wrong data. It gives the misleading impression that the that DoE are saying only 15% of the recent co2 rise is anthropogenic, when in fact that figure (along with others on that page) has actually been plucked out of who knows where]

That you will have to ask junck science. What false data you are talking about I don't know. Water vapor is the major green house gas. Why should it not be included.

Another interesting problem: The New York Meteorological Observatory in Central Park, which is the source of the data shown on the GISS site, was established in 1868. So while the post-1968 data can have come from this station, where did the pre-1868 data in the junkscience.com graphs come from?

Most likely the data came from here.http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2ScienceB2C/data/ushcn/ushcn_des.jsp

Therefore these accusations made by junkscience.com are not as clear cut as they seem. There is all the possibility that junkscience.com is doing the distorting, or has made an error rather than GISS doing that. Unless junkscience.com can show:

1) There were reliable 1820-1860 measurements taken in the New York Central Park area

2) These measurements are accurate enough that they can be combined with post 1868 New York Meteorological Observatory measurements to give a meaningful trend.

Then they simply don't have a case based on what they have presented.

Even if we assume GISS did have in fact cut their graphs from 1820's onwards to 1880's onwards since 2004, junkscience.com would not only have to show that this wasn't done for a good data reason, but would also have to show it was done deliberately to mislead. For example perhaps GISS decided to show a plot for only the last century of data because 100 years is a nice round number - there's nothing wrong with that and it's not "distorting data. Especially when you realise that the "Common Sense Climate Index" is not about hyping warming at all.

That is the GISS page on the "Common Sense Climate Index" is not about making the case for global warming at all. Neither does junkscience.com's graphs, assuming they are reliable, make a case against global warming. This is a single station giving measurements for a single region.

The Common Sense Climate Index is a measure of whether local temperature change is pronounced enough to be noticable to people living in the a local area. As the site says: "If the Index reaches and consistently maintains a value of 1 or more, the climate change should be noticeable to most people who have lived at that location for a few decades."

So even if it was warmer 150 years ago in New York Central Park, all the CSCI is telling us is (correctly) that people back then would have defintely noticed the later drop in temperature. The CSCI is not an "index giving a completely false impression" as Junkscience.com claim.

It is if it has been used for the wrong purposes. I don't know if it has or has not. For some reason it got the attention of junk science.

No matter, the man made global warming theory is, and has been based on compurter models, not on actual historical temp. records. Compurter models that don't match the know records when they are made to pedict future temperature increases with c02 as the driver for those increases.

[B. Max]

Alberta benefits from the grid too. Surprisingly, Alberta has had energy shortages over the last few years when it comes to hydro. Lines from B.C. would ensure that Alberta's economy keeps humming along.

It isn't just an Ontario problem.

Alberta is a net exporter of power. The shortages came about when to many plants came up for shut down maintenance at the same time, and around the same time new plants were about to on stream. Alberta has no problem with power. Now sask. is going with more coal plants. Ont. actually has a huge problem.

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/new...fb-01be9140ca5e

[jdobbin]

Alberta is a net exporter of power. The shortages came about when to many plants came up for shut down maintenance at the same time, and around the same time new plants were about to on stream. Alberta has no problem with power. Now sask. is going with more coal plants. Ont. actually has a huge problem.

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/new...fb-01be9140ca5e

Alberta could have used extra power if it had been available during shutdowns. And an east-west power grid helps Alberta even more because it can supply B.C. and Saskatchewan when they go through their own low points.

[B. Max]

Alberta is a net exporter of power. The shortages came about when to many plants came up for shut down maintenance at the same time, and around the same time new plants were about to on stream. Alberta has no problem with power. Now sask. is going with more coal plants. Ont. actually has a huge problem.

http://www.canada.com/reginaleaderpost/new...fb-01be9140ca5e

Alberta could have used extra power if it had been available during shutdowns. And an east-west power grid helps Alberta even more because it can supply B.C. and Saskatchewan when they go through their own low points.

I think we are connected to BC but I might wrong. They have been planning a new grid connection to the US but I don't think what will happen. I was reading somewhere the other day Texas has just approved something like eight teen new plants.

[jdobbin]

I think we are connected to BC but I might wrong. They have been planning a new grid connection to the US but I don't think what will happen. I was reading somewhere the other day Texas has just approved something like eight teen new plants.

Alberta is indeed connected to both B.C. and Saskatchewan. The lines are limited to how much voltage they can send out or receive. This is why a national power grid goes a long way to securing power needs for every province through drought, shut downs or when they have an excess to share during heat waves or cold waves.

[B. Max]

I think we are connected to BC but I might wrong. They have been planning a new grid connection to the US but I don't think what will happen. I was reading somewhere the other day Texas has just approved something like eight teen new plants.

Alberta is indeed connected to both B.C. and Saskatchewan. The lines are limited to how much voltage they can send out or receive. This is why a national power grid goes a long way to securing power needs for every province through drought, shut downs or when they have an excess to share during heat waves or cold waves.

That's what the international power grid is for.

[jdobbin]

That's what the international power grid is for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:North_a...atingplants.gif

You can see there is not many available plants in the U.S. to supply Alberta when it needs it. And Alberta has needed it several times in the last few years.