New simulation predicts higher average Earth temperatures by 2050 than other models

Mar 26, 2012 by Bob Yirka report
Evolution of uncertainties in reconstructed global-mean temperature projections. Image (c) Nature Geoscience (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1430

(PhysOrg.com) -- Over the past several years, researchers have built a variety of computer simulations created to predict Earth’s climate in the future. Most recently, most models have suggested that over the next fifty years, we’ll see an average worldwide rise in temperature of perhaps 1°C. Now a new group of simulations, using the combined computing power of thousands of personal computers, says that number is too low, and that we might see temperatures rise as much as 3°C, which would of course, be a far more serious situation. The simulations, run by climateprediction.net in conjunction with the BBC Climate Change Experiment, resulted in predictions of a rise in temperature ranging from 1.4°C to 3.0°C by 2050. The large team involved in the project has published their findings in Nature Geoscience.

While very few if any climate scientists expect a rise of 3°C would destroy our way of life, such a change would almost certainly result in much higher ocean levels, permanently flooding many coastal areas. Many also see a rise of 2°C, as the tipping point, or point of no return, which could some time in the distant future spell doom for our species if not our planet. Many suggest that such a rise could also have a profound impact on weather systems. One recent study by a team of researchers and published in Nature Climate Change, reports on findings that suggest recent weather patterns are already showing signs of change due to global warming. A higher incidence of tornadoes in the US, a heat wave in Russian, flooding in Pakistan, etc. are all linked to elevated temperatures.

The new computer simulation model was a modification of one already used by the UK’s meteorological agency to predict global temperature changes. It was modified to more accurately take into account , how fast oceans absorb heat, and heat reflected back into space by aerosols in the atmosphere. The simulation was then run over 10,000 times on personal computers offered for service by home computer users, each with slightly different parameters and each covering the period 1920 to 2080. Every simulation also ran with the assumption that carbon emissions would continue to be spewed into the atmosphere at the same rate as occurs today. Once data was received from all the simulations, the researchers discarded those findings that didn’t make sense in a contextual sense. Of those remaining, none showed an increase of less than 1°C over temperatures from just a decade ago, while nearly 15% of them showed a rise of as much as 3°C by the year 2050.

While this new simulation isn’t definitive proof that temperatures worldwide will increase as much as predicted over the next thirty eight years, it most definitely is a warning that we as a species would be putting ourselves in peril if we don’t find a way to stop pumping carbon emissions into the atmosphere sooner rather than later.

Explore further: Geologists discover ancient buried canyon in South Tibet

More information: Broad range of 2050 warming from an observationally constrained large climate model ensemble, Nature Geoscience (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1430

Abstract
Incomplete understanding of three aspects of the climate system—equilibrium climate sensitivity, rate of ocean heat uptake and historical aerosol forcing—and the physical processes underlying them lead to uncertainties in our assessment of the global-mean temperature evolution in the twenty-first century1, 2. Explorations of these uncertainties have so far relied on scaling approaches3, 4, large ensembles of simplified climate models1, 2, or small ensembles of complex coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation models5, 6 which under-represent uncertainties in key climate system properties derived from independent sources7, 8, 9. Here we present results from a multi-thousand-member perturbed-physics ensemble of transient coupled atmosphere–ocean general circulation model simulations. We find that model versions that reproduce observed surface temperature changes over the past 50 years show global-mean temperature increases of 1.4–3 K by 2050, relative to 1961–1990, under a mid-range forcing scenario. This range of warming is broadly consistent with the expert assessment provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fourth Assessment Report10, but extends towards larger warming than observed in ensembles-of-opportunity5 typically used for climate impact assessments. From our simulations, we conclude that warming by the middle of the twenty-first century that is stronger than earlier estimates is consistent with recent observed temperature changes and a mid-range ‘no mitigation’ scenario for greenhouse-gas emissions.

Related Stories

Warming of two degrees inevitable over Canada: study

Mar 04, 2012

(PhysOrg.com) -- Even if zero emissions of greenhouse gases were to be achieved, the world’s temperature would continue to rise by about a quarter of a degree over a decade. That’s a best-case ...

Deep oceans can mask global warming for decade-long periods

Sep 18, 2011

The planet's deep oceans at times may absorb enough heat to flatten the rate of global warming for periods of as long as a decade even in the midst of longer-term warming, according to a new analysis led by the National Center ...

Recommended for you

Geologists discover ancient buried canyon in South Tibet

9 hours ago

A team of researchers from Caltech and the China Earthquake Administration has discovered an ancient, deep canyon buried along the Yarlung Tsangpo River in south Tibet, north of the eastern end of the Himalayas. ...

User comments : 170

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

axemaster
4.7 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2012
which could some time in the distant future spell doom for our species if not our planet

Uh oh... They got a bit overexcited. Don't feed the trolls guys.

Every simulation also ran with the assumption that carbon emissions would continue to be spewed into the atmosphere at the same rate as occurs today

Doesn't that make it an underestimate since the rate of CO2 emissions are constantly increasing?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (33) Mar 26, 2012
This model is already wrong. "Global warming" stalled out as much as 14 years ago. Here's the actual data:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

Here's the most recent decadal trend:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

Perhaps it's a bit early to start calling it "Global Cooling," but this certainly implies some sort of disconnect for AGW.

That is, it seems apparent global temperatures aren't necessarily in lock step with human induced CO2 emissions.

Sean_W
2 / 5 (25) Mar 26, 2012
New simulation that's not able to predict the present predicts ideologically correct future; cataclysm to follow. Film at eleven.
wwqq
3.6 / 5 (20) Mar 26, 2012
This model is already wrong. "Global warming" stalled out as much as 14 years ago.


http://woodfortre...87/trend

It's cooling! No wait, now it's cooling! No wait, now it's cooling!

When we get a new outlier like 1998, that will quickly become the new starting year for the deniers. In 2020 we'll be hearing about how it has been cooling since 201x, and in 2030 how it's been cooling since 202x.
ryggesogn2
Mar 26, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
plaasjaapie
Mar 26, 2012
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
deatopmg
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2012
@axemaster where is CO2 mentioned herein?

This is just another of a myriad of models. All wrong, so far (because of positive water feedbacks). Time will tell - have patience.
phlipper
1.8 / 5 (18) Mar 26, 2012
GIGO regardless of computing power.

Stole my thunder. There was scant mention of feedbacks (which alarmists always assume a net positive), the fact that CO2 levels were much higher thousands of years ago without a rise in global temperature(see ice core data), or the fact that global temperatures haven't risen in a dozen years. Climate models have failed miserably and will no doubt continue to do so.
ccr5Delta32
4 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2012


Perhaps it's a bit early to start calling it "Global Cooling," but this certainly implies some sort of disconnect for AGW.


Really ? Why don't you take another look at your link

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
rubberman
4 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2012
GIGO regardless of computing power.

Stole my thunder. There was scant mention of feedbacks (which alarmists always assume a net positive), the fact that CO2 levels were much higher thousands of years ago without a rise in global temperature(see ice core data), or the fact that global temperatures haven't risen in a dozen years. Climate models have failed miserably and will no doubt continue to do so.


You missed a few zero's...you have to go back over a million years to find CO2 levels near today's PPM. Of course the blatently visible plateau between 1998 (previously considered an outlier because of how much above the norm it was) and 2011 would indicate no warming...unless you compare any of the years during that plateau with any years prior to 1998....
Scant mention of feedbacks is a little worrisome considering the net loss of permafrost per year and rapidly diminishing arctic ice extent. These things always indicate cooling....right?
runrig
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2012
[q the fact that CO2 levels were much higher thousands of years ago without a rise in global temperature(see ice core data), or the fact that global temperatures haven't risen in a dozen years. Climate models have failed miserably and will no doubt continue to do so.

One important factor we have today that wasn't around "thousands of years ago" ( actually several million ) is mankind. The normal way of things is for temperatures to rise due to eccentricities in the Earth's orbit and other feedbacks, and for CO2 rise to follow. Now plug in Man and the process is reversed. Get it! No didn't think so.
The second appalling ignorant point you make has been already dealt with.
Burnerjack
2.5 / 5 (15) Mar 26, 2012
Increased temp and increased CO2 sounds like a increase in global agriculture.
Canada and Northern Eurasia become viable farmland (again)?
julianpenrod
3.5 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2012
ubavontuba only demonstrates how aggressively lies so often are promoted. ubavontuba gloats about one of the charts on Wood For Trees being consistent with, not proving, that global warming "stalled out as much as 14 years ago". Then ubavontuba presents another graph supposedly "proving" the world was "cooling" for the last decade! In other words. the temperature hasn't changed, but it's decreased! That kind of non logic of excess over sense resonates with the dullards the New World Order seeks as it power base. The kind, too, unlikely to realize that ubavontuba careully, like all New World Order wuislings, avoids mentioning a third chart on Wood For Trees that shows world temperature to have increased over the past thirty years! A rule in courts is "false in one, false in all", if someone lies once, you are allowed and even required to assume everything they say is a lie.
rikvanriel
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2012
The last doubling of CO2 (over the past 150 years) came with a warming of about 1 degree C. It is pretty much accepted as fact, by AGWers and skeptics alike, that CO2 concentration has a logarithmic effect on temperature.

It just does not seem credible that the next 40% (roughly a factor square root of two) increase of CO2 has an effect over 6x as strong as the last 40% increase.

As an aside, if you check the tornado statistics for the last century in the US, there is no trend. The kind of heat wave that plagued Russia in 2010 also happened in the late 19th century, for the same reason (unlucky alignment of oceanic current oscillations and stratospheric blocking).

You do not have to believe me. You can verify these things for yourself in about 15 minutes.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2012
It's cooling! No wait, now it's cooling! No wait, now it's cooling!

When we get a new outlier like 1998, that will quickly become the new starting year for the deniers. In 2020 we'll be hearing about how it has been cooling since 201x, and in 2030 how it's been cooling since 202x.
Didn't even bother to look at the second graph, did you?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (15) Mar 26, 2012
Really ? Why don't you take another look at your link

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
This just serves to prove my point that global warming has stalled out. If there was a direct corollary between human activity and global temperature, this should not have occurred. Temperatures should have continued to rise at an increasing rate (and I won't even bother to talk about the "hockey stick" debacle).
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (17) Mar 26, 2012
You missed a few zero's...you have to go back over a million years to find CO2 levels near today's PPM. Of course the blatently visible plateau between 1998 (previously considered an outlier because of how much above the norm it was) and 2011 would indicate no warming...unless you compare any of the years during that plateau with any years prior to 1998....
Scant mention of feedbacks is a little worrisome considering the net loss of permafrost per year and rapidly diminishing arctic ice extent. These things always indicate cooling....right?


Whereas it's true Northern sea ice has retreated:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

Interestingly, southern sea ice is advancing:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (19) Mar 26, 2012
One important factor we have today that wasn't around "thousands of years ago" ( actually several million ) is mankind. The normal way of things is for temperatures to rise due to eccentricities in the Earth's orbit and other feedbacks, and for CO2 rise to follow. Now plug in Man and the process is reversed. Get it! No didn't think so.
The second appalling ignorant point you make has been already dealt with.
If mankind was such a powerful factor, why has global warming stalled out?
julianpenrod
3.5 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2012
Even if there is an undeniable trend, in a complex system, inherent with its being complex, os the likelihood of variations. Otherwise, it would be an absolutely straight, monotonic progression. But that is consistent only with a single process acting, which woiuld suggest the system is not complex. Even something as simple as rolling dice displays a degree of complexity, both from the environment and inherent. If ubavontuba's "argument" were correct, rolling dice should produce a constant stream of 1's, 2's, ..., 6's all in equal amounts. Like saying a warming earth must never have even momentary spans when temperatures don't change greatly. But that's never what happens. The environment causes dice to roll in different fashions, with spates of different outcomes. Indeed, just to be "random" the sequence must have a likelihood of periods when the ocurrences fall far from the averages! ubavontuba shapes up as just another malingerer, mouthing off to hear themselves talk!
StarGazer2011
1 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2012
The last doubling of CO2 (over the past 150 years) came with a warming of about 1 degree C. It is pretty much accepted as fact, by AGWers and skeptics alike, that CO2 concentration has a logarithmic effect on temperature.

It just does not seem credible that the next 40% (roughly a factor square root of two) increase of CO2 has an effect over 6x as strong as the last 40% increase.

As an aside, if you check the tornado statistics for the last century in the US, there is no trend. The kind of heat wave that plagued Russia in 2010 also happened in the late 19th century, for the same reason (unlucky alignment of oceanic current oscillations and stratospheric blocking).

You do not have to believe me. You can verify these things for yourself in about 15 minutes.


I wish I could give you more than 5!
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (20) Mar 26, 2012
ubavontuba gloats about one of the charts on Wood For Trees being consistent with, not proving, that global warming "stalled out as much as 14 years ago". Then ubavontuba presents another graph supposedly "proving" the world was "cooling" for the last decade! In other words. the temperature hasn't changed, but it's decreased!
You really don't know how statistical trend graphs work, do you?

Statistically, for the last 14 years the trend is there's been no global warming.

Statistically for the past 10 years the trend for cooling.

Realistically, it varies up and down. You did notice the squiggly red line, didn't you? (duh)

ubavontuba careully, like all New World Order wuislings, avoids mentioning a third chart on Wood For Trees that shows world temperature to have increased over the past thirty years
This is a straw man. I never suggested it didn't warm before the period in question. In fact, by stating global warming has stalled out, I've implied just opposite (duh).

roboferret
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2012
One model predicted the biggest rise? Next I'll find out that a completely different model predicted the lowest rise, and other models made predictions inbetween!
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (20) Mar 26, 2012
Even if there is an undeniable trend, in a complex system, inherent with its being complex, os the likelihood of variations. Otherwise, it would be an absolutely straight, monotonic progression. But that is consistent only with a single process acting, which woiuld suggest the system is not complex. Even something as simple as rolling dice displays a degree of complexity, both from the environment and inherent. If ubavontuba's "argument" were correct, rolling dice should produce a constant stream of 1's, 2's, ..., 6's all in equal amounts. Like saying a warming earth must never have even momentary spans when temperatures don't change greatly. But that's never what happens. The environment causes dice to roll in different fashions, with spates of different outcomes. Indeed, just to be "random" the sequence must have a likelihood of periods when the ocurrences fall far from the averages!
So you're saying there ARE other factors involved? It's not all anthropomorphic?
julianpenrod
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2012
As is so often the case with liars, ubavontuba's "proof" is intended only for those who don't understand things around them. And it actually can go against what they contend.
For example, ubavontuba points proudly at the two graphs, one of Arctic ice deminishing, the other of Antarctic ice supposedly increasing. These, ubavontuba would have the gullible believe, "prove" the eaerth's overall temperature change has "stalled". Leaving aside the fact that the vertical axes are not labelled in legend or unit, which automatically disqualifies them as useful, if they are assumed to represent sea ice coveage in, say, tens of thousands of square kilometers, they still deny ubavontuba. Because the Arctic graph decrease by about 1 while the Arctic graph increases by only about .4!
And, as for judging "trends" over too short a period, if you isolated only the last part of the graph "proving" heating has "stalled", you would "conclude" the earth will lose 30 degrees by next year!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Mar 26, 2012
@julianpenrod (cont'd from above),

Didn't you see where I stated:

Perhaps it's a bit early to start calling it "Global Cooling," but this certainly implies some sort of disconnect for AGW.

That is, it seems apparent global temperatures aren't necessarily in lock step with human induced CO2 emissions.


So, isn't that essentially what you're saying?
julianpenrod
3.4 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2012
So often, a swindle depends not on the truth but on misinterpreting the truth. With respect to the dice, the environment and even simple randomness requires a complex system to show variation. Over a short term, that can point one way, but it is an error to look only at the short term. Just as it is a disservice to those looking who may not have a great understanding of things to point out only ten years and say that shows something completely different happening. But that means the environment is causing the variation, not the underlying process! It is the human hand tossing the dice, the environment is only forcing the dice into patterns; it is the human hand causing the warming, the environment is causing the warming not to be straight up! the craven are alwasy ready to misinterpret.
Note, if you decided to concern yourself only with the period from 1989 to 1994, you would get an overall decreasing temperature trend, too, but, still, overall, the temperature rose.
TheGhostofOtto1923
4 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2012
As is so often the case with liars, ubavontuba's "proof" is intended only for those who don't understand things around them.
Ahaaahahaaahahaha battling godders. God must be on one side or the other, but which side is it? This reminds me of the norman invasion. Or the war of the roses. Or the sack of constantinople. Have at it but just dont destroy the world ok? Aw they never listen to me.
StarGazer2011
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 26, 2012
Pillars of Piety:
1) Stefan-Boltzman equation implies -15C surface temperature, therefore there must be 'something' warming the surface.
2) GHE Theory to provide 33K to account for discrepancy between SB and observed. CO2 doubling by itself should account for 1.1K per doubling of concentration
3) Climate models can be constructed which imply a higher 'forcing' and 3.3K to 6K warming from each doubling
4) Biosphere has 'strange attractors' or 'tipping points' which will lead to fire famine and pestilence and >6K warming at some point

1) Some argue that SB law is misapplied to surface, ignoring atmosphere, and correct application leads to -15C average temperature at 5km altitude which is as observed, thus no need for GHE theory (realists/deniers)
2) lukewarmists/skeptics
3) alarmists/IPCC - some argue forcing essp cloud effects are not well enough understood to produce a reliable figure
4) catastrophist/true believer - totally speculative, no evidence in paleo record
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (18) Mar 26, 2012
ubavontuba points proudly at the two graphs, one of Arctic ice deminishing, the other of Antarctic ice supposedly increasing. These, ubavontuba would have the gullible believe, "prove" the eaerth's overall temperature change has "stalled".
That's a strawman. I never stated, implied, or even suggested any of this. You're arguing with yourself. I just thought it was interesting.

However, the fact that sea levels have actually begun to fall makes one wonder where all that water went...

http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

Keep in mind the sea level chart is corrupted with a .3mm per year fudge factor (GIA correction) relative to land. That is, if the sea level change measured value is zero, they'll still claim a .3mm rise.

StarGazer2011
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2012
the argument isnt about if its warming or not, the argument is about whats causing it, and if its CO2 then what the likely future effects are.
The CO2 argument was mostly arugment from corellation (which has broken down) and arguments from ignorance (use of term unprecedented) which ice cores are steadily refuting. Looks to me that either the realists or lukewarmers will turn out to be most accurate, catastrophists are just misanthropic neo-pagan post-socialist post-normal nutcases and scammers.
rikvanriel
3.8 / 5 (5) Mar 26, 2012
@julianpenrod: while it is fairly obvious that human activity has caused part of the warming (and will cause warming going forward), it is a fact that the world started warming out of the little ice age before the industrial revolution started.

This makes it reasonable to presume that human activity was responsible for part of the warming of the past few centuries, but also that natural changes in the climate were responsible for another part of the warming.

If you look at the temperature of the last 150 years or so, you will see natural variations in a roughly sine wave shaped pattern, along a rising temperature axis with an overall trend of just under 1 degree C per century.

The alarmists cling to the decade-and-a-half periods of faster warming to find evidence for catastrophy, the deniers (for lack of a better word) cling to the decade-and-a-half periods of cooling. Each tries to distract the world from the larger picture.
ccr5Delta32
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2012
This just serves to prove my point that global warming has stalled out. If there was a direct corollary between human activity and global temperature, this should not have occurred. Temperatures should have continued to rise at an increasing rate (and I won't even bother to talk about the "hockey stick" debacle).


Only if it was a very simplistic system ,ie "a direct corollary" as you put it .It's certainly not a simple system I don't think anyone ever said it was with the exception of the "skeptic" who evidently know better the preponderance of professionals .
And No the extrapolation of the graph(linked) to the 80's or 70's does not in any way prove your point ,wishful thinking perhaps .
Methinks it is like a weasel
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Mar 26, 2012
the environment and even simple randomness requires a complex system to show variation.
Well isn't it funny then that the calculated graph in the article only shows consistent warming over periods of 14 years?

it is the human hand causing the warming,
What warming are you talking about? Haven't you learned anything here? Global warming stalled out about 14 years ago.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Mar 26, 2012
Only if it was a very simplistic system ,ie "a direct corollary" as you put it .It's certainly not a simple system I don't think anyone ever said it was with the exception of the "skeptic" who evidently know better the preponderance of professionals .
And No the extrapolation of the graph(linked) to the 80's or 70's does not in any way prove your point ,wishful thinking perhaps .
Methinks it is like a weasel
So a rise leading to a flat period, doesn't prove there was a rise and then a flat period? How does that work?

Maybe we can just ignore the charts and claim it's warming and cooling, willy-nilly?
axemaster
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 26, 2012
So a rise, leading to a flat period, doesn't prove there was a rise and then a flat period? How does that work?

It doesn't work when it is within the statistically expected limits. Typically this is the deviation modeled as a Gaussian around the expected mean (i.e. the functional fit used or similar). So no, you can't interpret that as "a rise and then a flat period".

Maybe we can just ignore the charts and claim it's warming and cooling, willy-nilly?

Given that you have been cherry-picking data in the most blatant manner possible, your statements go far beyond absurdity and into the realm of extreme dishonesty.
rikvanriel
1.5 / 5 (2) Mar 26, 2012
@axemaster: besides CO2 induced warming, land use changes induced warming and coming out of the little ice age, there are also weather influencing factors at shorter time frames, such as the North Atlantic Oscillation, the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino Southern Oscillation.

This makes for a large number of non-random drivers, explaining why the temperature has gone up and down in a 3 decade or so rhythm over the past century and a half. You are right that the random variations are so large that they swamp the regular drivers at times.
Howhot
3.7 / 5 (10) Mar 26, 2012
How hot is it going to get before the environment haters finally give in and say; "well maybe those AGW people where right?" 1 degree C, 2C, how about 3 degree C? The computer models are fine; It's the AGW deniers that are wacko. The AGW deniers can't think their way out of a paper-bag. The deniers have some strange idea that CO2 is not a green house gas at 400ppm (as it is today).

Unfortunately for your kids kids you haven't stopped making CO2 or slowed the CO2 creation rate, or even supported to the concept of reducing fossil fuel created excess CO2.

It's the crazy deniers that would love nothing more that to ignore the warnings and tank-up the car to be environmental refugees. Read between my fingers deniers; that is the finger your giving your kids.



ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 26, 2012
How hot is it going to get before the environment haters finally give in and say; "well maybe those AGW people where right?" 1 degree C, 2C, how about 3 degree C? The computer models are fine; It's the AGW deniers that are wacko. The AGW deniers can't think their way out of a paper-bag. The deniers have some strange idea that CO2 is not a green house gas at 400ppm (as it is today).

Unfortunately for your kids kids you haven't stopped making CO2 or slowed the CO2 creation rate, or even supported to the concept of reducing fossil fuel created excess CO2.

It's the crazy deniers that would love nothing more that to ignore the warnings and tank-up the car to be environmental refugees. Read between my fingers deniers; that is the finger your giving your kids.




And Hottie claims to be a scientist.
DKA
3.5 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2012
I can't beleive there are so many global warming deniers, so many idiots who read Physorg, it is really unbeleivable.
Give yourself a break, go to school...
Howhot
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 26, 2012
And Hottie claims to be a scientist.
You are correct R2! Today I claim to be concerned! Obviously with your attack on me, you are not; concerned. Not concerned about the environment, not concerned about the human condition. It's all about you, isn't it?

Well come out with it! You know the science is right. You want to say anything that will validate your views. Your views are wrong, scientifically, morally, and logically.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2012
It doesn't work when it is within the statistically expected limits.
But it's not.

Typically this is the deviation modeled as a Gaussian around the expected mean (i.e. the functional fit used or similar). So no, you can't interpret that as "a rise and then a flat period".
Haven't you noticed the flat period doesn't show up even as a statistical possibility in the chart from the article?

Given that you have been cherry-picking data in the most blatant manner possible, your statements go far beyond absurdity and into the realm of extreme dishonesty.
How is using the most recent and reliable data available, cherry picking? If Global warming hadn't stalled out about 14 years ago, I couldn't show it. If the most recent decade hadn't seen a cooling trend, I couldn't show that either.

Maybe you WANT me to cherry pick the data and only show periods of warming? How's that relevant to what's happening now?

Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2012
And Hottie claims to be a scientist.
You are correct R2! Today I claim to be concerned! Obviously with your attack on me, you are not; concerned. Not concerned about the environment, not concerned about the human condition. It's all about you, isn't it?

Well come out with it! You know the science is right. You want to say anything that will validate your views. Your views are wrong, scientifically, morally, and logically.
What's with the hysterics? Surely (if you're really a climate scientist) you know that historically, when the earth enters warm periods it supports more life (not less).

So where's the problem? Warm is good. Frozen is bad.

Maybe you think you'll have to run for your life from the advancing wave of rising sea levels? Prepare yourself, in a century or two your wiener dog might be up to his neck, if he hasn't the sense to move up the beach a few steps (LOL).
axemaster
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2012
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?

@ubavontuba

Honestly, you want to know why? Because I'm a physicist. I have years of training with data and statistical analysis. And the fact is, no matter how you cut it, the data say that global warming is happening, and that it is being caused by humans.

I have to search very very hard to find a single statement from you that doesn't smack of blatant manipulation or stark disregard of basic facts. Facts even a completely untrained person could discern with ease.

I didn't want to do a "credentials war" with you, but we were heading into a "yes it is! no it isn't!" type of argument anyway. I'm under no obligation to tolerate your stupidity. You are cherry picking your data to support a faulty hypothesis. You are either very dishonest or very ignorant. Either way you're a waste of space in this thread.
axemaster
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2012
Haven't you noticed the flat period doesn't show up even as a statistical possibility in the chart from the article?

This particular statement is so dumb that against my better judgement I simply can't resist responding to it. The chart does show EXACTLY this kind of statistical behavior. If you can't see that then you need to return to grade school and relearn the meaning of a "graph". Also learn what a "mean" is, and "standard deviation".

By the way, here's a nice little illustration that shows exactly why your so-called cooling trend is horribly wrong.

http://www.skepti...php?g=47

Honestly, I hope you don't do your own taxes.
axemaster
4 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2012
Oh, I'm such a nice person. I'll give you a little statistics tutorial:
http://www.skepti...Fnv2.gif

Do the statistics make more sense now?

Also: http://www.skepti..._med.jpg
And: http://www.skepti...ison.png
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2012
@axemaster

Honestly, you want to know why? Because I'm a physicist. I have years of training with data and statistical analysis. And the fact is, no matter how you cut it, the data say that global warming is happening, and that it is being caused by humans.
I've clearly shown with the best available data that it stalled out about 14 years ago, and the past decade has even seen a cooling trend.

Do you have a problem with these datasets? Which datasets would you have me use?

Perhaps you're one of those "physicists" who ignores data which doesn't agree with your preconceived notions?

I have to search very very hard to find a single statement from you that doesn't smack of blatant manipulation or stark disregard of basic facts. Facts even a completely untrained person could discern with ease.
Then provide better quality data which proves I'm wrong. Can you? Are these just fightin' words?

cont...
axemaster
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
Then provide better quality data which proves I'm wrong.

I just did. Categorically.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.9 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2012
UbVonTard likes to lie with statistics.

His claim of no warming is proven to be a lie by simply altering his starting year backward by 1 year. IF you change it by 2 years then the warming trend becomes 1.3'C per decade.

The fact that the slope changes so dramatically based on the starting point, combined with UbvonTards cherry picking of the warmest year possible for the starting point, tells us that he is trying to lie with statistics.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2012
I didn't want to do a "credentials war" with you, but we were heading into a "yes it is! no it isn't!" type of argument anyway. I'm under no obligation to tolerate your stupidity. You are cherry picking your data to support a faulty hypothesis. You are either very dishonest or very ignorant. Either way you're a waste of space in this thread.
Ah, so then it is "fightin' words."

And you call yourself a scientist? Where's your scientific curiosity? Where's your data? What happened to the scientific methodologies?

It appears sir, you are no scientist.

Words, words, words. That's all you have?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2012
Here I show that the warming is 0.6'C per decade using 1996 as the starting year...

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

"I've clearly shown with the best available data that it stalled out about 14 years ago" - UbvonLiar

axemaster
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2012
Oh look, even more data, now from multiple independent sources!

http://berkeleyea...ison.jpg

I'm going to bed now. Goodnight all ye pirates!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2012
This particular statement is so dumb that against my better judgement I simply can't resist responding to it. The chart does show EXACTLY this kind of statistical behavior. If you can't see that then you need to return to grade school and relearn the meaning of a "graph". Also learn what a "mean" is, and "standard deviation".
Their graph is set up such that a 14 year long flat period would be such a statistical improbability as to essentially be impossible.

By the way, here's a nice little illustration that shows exactly why your so-called cooling trend is horribly wrong.
Cute, but these time frames begin and end in cherry picked months and average about 6.5 years.

I'm using much longer time periods (10 and 14 years) and my time periods begin and end normally (statistically random samples).

Therefore, my interpretation is perfectly valid. There's been no statistical warming (step up or otherwise) since 1998.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2012
Oh, I'm such a nice person.
Really? That's not how you come across.

I'll give you a little statistics tutorial:
http://www.skepti...Fnv2.gif

Do the statistics make more sense now?
I gave you cycles noise trend for a 14 year period. All you're doing is strengthening my methodology.

Also: http://www.skepti..._med.jpg
Sea temperature data for the same period:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

And: http://www.skepti...ison.png


Here's the temperature for the period:

http://www.woodfo.../to:2012

Here's CO2:

http://www.woodfo.../to:2012

Do you see the disconnect?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 27, 2012
Then provide better quality data which proves I'm wrong.

I just did. Categorically.
LOL. Hardly. All you did was provide strawman samples of bad data, trying to equate it with mine.

Where's your data for the past 14 year and 10 year periods?

MarkyMark
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2012
This particular statement is so dumb that against my better judgement I simply can't resist responding to it. The chart does show EXACTLY this kind of statistical behavior. If you can't see that then you need to return to grade school and relearn the meaning of a "graph". Also learn what a "mean" is, and "standard deviation".
Their graph is set up such that a 14 year long flat period would be such a statistical improbability as to essentially be impossible.

By
I'm using much longer time periods (10 and 14 years) and my time periods begin and end normally (statistically random samples).

Therefore, my interpretation is perfectly valid. There's been no statistical warming (step up or otherwise) since 1998.

Give up you are so out in the open wrong that you MUST be a Troll. Go back under that cold bridge of yours nd get some rest.
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (14) Mar 27, 2012
Uba likes to lie with statistics.

His claim of no warming is proven to be a lie by simply altering his starting year backward by 1 year. IF you change it by 2 years then the warming trend becomes 1.3'C per decade.

The fact that the slope changes so dramatically based on the starting point, combined with Uba's cherry picking of the warmest year possible for the starting point, tells us that he is trying to lie with statistics.
First, this is a strawman. I never said there was no warming before this period. In fact, quite the opposite. So why are you arguing with yourself?

Second, 1998 wasn't "the warmest year possible." According to the NOAA, the warmest years on record were 2005 and 2010:

http://www.noaane...ats.html

Seriously, do you do ANY research before spouting off?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2012
Here I show that the warming is 0.6'C per decade using 1996 as the starting year...

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
Uh, don't you mean 0.06 degrees?

Anyway, I never stated there wasn't any global warming before 1998. You're just trying to skew the data to add global warming to a period which had none.

I'm not the only one who's noticed the current trend though.

"What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years."

And:

"The lack of any statistically significant warming for over a decade has made it more difficult for the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and its supporters to demonize the atmospheric gas CO2..."

http://online.wsj...news_wsj

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2012
Oh look, even more data, now from multiple independent sources!

http://berkeleyea...ison.jpg


Well that's a bad sample. The range is so broad you can't select out the periods in question. Even so, you can sort of tell it's falling off at the end there.

I'm going to bed now. Goodnight all ye pirates!
Me too. Goodnight.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (16) Mar 27, 2012
Give up you are so out in the open wrong that you MUST be a Troll. Go back under that cold bridge of yours nd get some rest.
If I'm so wrong, provide the data for the period in question which proves I'm wrong. Otherwise, shut up.
MarkyMark
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2012
Give up you are so out in the open wrong that you MUST be a Troll. Go back under that cold bridge of yours nd get some rest.
If I'm so wrong, provide the data for the period in question which proves I'm wrong. Otherwise, shut up.

Why should i bother? You continually ignore good data from those who followed your...... Request for data. They are wasting there time as your objective is not to debate honestly, just to provoke!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2012
Why should i bother? You continually ignore good data from those who followed your...... Request for data.
That's a lie. No data relevant only to the periods in question have been provided.

They are wasting there time as your objective is not to debate honestly, just to provoke!
My objective is to show objectively that global warming has stalled. Do you have ANY data which proves it's continuing in the present? No? Then shut up.
rikvanriel
3.7 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2012
@avontuba: climate changes happen, and are measured, over really long periods of time. The stalled warning in the 2000's or the cooling between 1940 and 1970 are no more meaningful than the short periods of fast warming between 1910 and 1940, or between 1970 and 2000.

Claims of either stopped or rapidly accelerating warming are misinformed at best, dishonest at worst. We all know there are other factors at work besides CO2 (eg. El Nino, North Atlantic Oscillation, etc).

Alarmists and deniers both focus on meaningless short periods. What matters is the really long term trend.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (11) Mar 27, 2012
@avontuba: climate changes happen, and are measured, over really long periods of time. The stalled warning in the 2000's or the cooling between 1940 and 1970 are no more meaningful than the short periods of fast warming between 1910 and 1940, or between 1970 and 2000.

Claims of either stopped or rapidly accelerating warming are misinformed at best, dishonest at worst. We all know there are other factors at work besides CO2 (eg. El Nino, North Atlantic Oscillation, etc).

Alarmists and deniers both focus on meaningless short periods. What matters is the really long term trend.

What really matters is how the AGW socialist policies will impact everyone's ability to adapt to inevitable changes.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 27, 2012
Rik says:

"Alarmists and deniers both focus on meaningless short periods. What matters is the really long term trend."

Rygg says:

"What really matters is how the AGW socialist policies will impact everyone's ability to adapt to inevitable changes."

Both are correct. The effects on climate due to the gradual increase in temperature are manifested in the form of extreme weather, further amplified by the natural varibles at play such as an El nino and the NAO. A 1 degree C baseline increase in temperature, when added to the warming effect of an El Nino or a solar maximum causes the effects of natural variability to become amplified. Which nations are forced to deal with these extreme events, and how they choose to do so will, in the end become global in scope through trickle down and thus, as Rygg states, government policies...or lack thereof, will effect our ability to adapt on a global scale. This is why it is a global issue, socialist or not it must be dealt with this way.
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (9) Mar 27, 2012
This is why it is a global issue, socialist or not it must be dealt with this way.

That is the question. How do you 'deal' with it?
Ever notice that when earthquakes cause more deaths in the third world? They don't have the capital, the infrastructure to build safe buildings. Why don't they? Socialist policies have kept them poor.
The only rational way to deal with an unknown future, is to prepare robustly. The only way this can be done is from a position of economic strength and without central planning (socialism).
rikvanriel
3 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
@rubberman: there are a lot of claims that a 1 degree C increase in temperature causes an increase in extreme weather events.

However, the last century has seen a 1 degree C increase in temperature, but no corresponding increase in extreme weather events. Any time I see a "this time is different" claim, without a cause/effect explanation of why it actually is different, I get skeptical.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (3) Mar 27, 2012
@julianpenrod: while it is fairly obvious that human activity has caused part of the warming (and will cause warming going forward), it is a fact that the world started warming out of the little ice age before the industrial revolution started.

This makes it reasonable to presume that human activity was responsible for part of the warming of the past few centuries, but also that natural changes in the climate were responsible for another part of the warming.
No this makes it reasonable to EXAMINE but unreasonable to ASSUME anything based on it. This is how science works.
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
@Rygg:
Again I agree to an extent, the lack of infrastructure to help cope is devastating in the face of natural disasters in 3rd world countries. But when the west was building factories, these countries were still building huts, not so much because of government policy but simply because they still could as it was all they needed.

@Rik: I would disagree regarding your comment about a lack of extreme weather events but that is neither here nor there. The next 10 years will be very telling as to what the future will hold.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 27, 2012
but simply because they still could as it was all they needed.

BS!
How many people who have had indoor plumbing, a solid roof over their head voluntarily go back to huts?
not so much because of government policy

And it WAS because of govt policies. Note that govt policies in India have created free enterprise zones where factories and houses, not huts, are being built. Why not turn the whole country into a free enterprise zone? Let those who want to live in huts choose to do so.
rubberman
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
Were not talking about people who HAD indoor plumbing, were talking about people who are gradually aquiring it. And India is no longer a third world country, although you are correct that their own governmental policies have kept them lagging behind, they were a country who's primary export to the world was textiles yet until the mid 1980's, government legislation prohibited manufacture of them by machine...but, like china they are catching up.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2012
ere talking about people who are gradually aquiring it.

So you don't think these people want running water, flush toilets?

DaFranker
2.4 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
@rubberman: there are a lot of claims that a 1 degree C increase in temperature causes an increase in extreme weather events.

However, the last century has seen a 1 degree C increase in temperature, but no corresponding increase in extreme weather events. Any time I see a "this time is different" claim, without a cause/effect explanation of why it actually is different, I get skeptical.


What rock have you been living under? I want one like that to use as plating for my nuclear bunker. It's clearly impervious to everything, including truth and reason.

Look at pretty much any natural disaster frequency graph. They've more than doubled in frequency over the past 30 years alone.
rikvanriel
1 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
@TheGhost: you are right, it should be examined. Strangely enough, I have not managed to find any references to an examination on how much of the warming in the past century was naturally driven and how much was human driven (and how much of that CO2 driven). A lot of the climate models appear to assume that all the warming past 1950 was CO2 driven. Strange...

@rubberman: we do not have to disagree about a trend in extreme weather events. You can check the NOAA statistics on tornadoes and hurricanes yourself to see that there has not been any visible trend over the last century or so:

http://www.ncdc.n...oes.html

http://www.nhc.no...ec.shtml
rubberman
1 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012
Actually, Rik, I would consider the 7 day stretch in march we just had in Ontario where it was 25C every day to be an extreme weather event, my dad is 80 years old and when we were talking he said he had never cut his grass in March, this year he has 3 times and still a week to go. Incidents of lasting heat waves, drought, and the flipside, higher than usual precipitation as experienced by the North central states and prarie provinces last year that caused widespread flooding...I'm aware there is nothing visible regarding the types of storms you mention as far as quantity, however the if you check recent activity for the dates of some of the occurences, they fall into the "weird weather" category.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Mar 27, 2012
Actually, Rik, I would consider the 7 day stretch in march we just had in Ontario where it was 25C every day to be an extreme weather event, my dad is 80 years old and when we were talking he said he had never cut his grass in March, this year he has 3 times and still a week to go. Incidents of lasting heat waves, drought, and the flipside, higher than usual precipitation as experienced by the North central states and prarie provinces last year that caused widespread flooding...I'm aware there is nothing visible regarding the types of storms you mention as far as quantity, however the if you check recent activity for the dates of some of the occurences, they fall into the "weird weather" category.

Weather in the northern plains is always 'weird' due to its location.
Howhot
4.8 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
@ubavontuba; Nice graphs and I love the wood for trees website; but you need to looks at what is statistically valid to make your case. For example, how do you explain this graph?

http://www.woodfo.../to:2012

That is actually more like what we are seeing in global warming issues.

Howhot
5 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
Also deniers, look at this beauty of a plot;

http://www.woodfo.../to:2012

Isn't this an updated version of a graph Al-Gore presented in his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth"? Why yes it is.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) Mar 27, 2012
he had never cut his grass in March,

In Muskoka, ON, last year's low was 1deg F on 27 MAR11.
In 1998, the high was 64F on 27 MAR and 62F on 28 MAR.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Mar 27, 2012
Evolve or die Tard Boy.

'What really matters is how the AGW socialist policies..."- RyggTard
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Mar 27, 2012
Spokane, WA set a record low of 24degF on 19 MAR 12 and a record high of 61 on 9 MAR 12, and a record low of 12F on 27,28 FEB12.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 27, 2012

"In Muskoka, ON, last year's low was 1deg F" - RyggTard

Well, no. Last years low in Muskoka on this date was -12.8'F

Last week temperatures in Muskoka were in the 70's

72.3 on the 18th
74.8 on the 19th
74.2 on the 20th
79.3 on the 21th
74.4 on the 22

Unprecedented wampth

Never been seen before for those dates

Normal is 48'F for those dates

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
"Spokane, WA set a record low of 24degF on 19 MAR 12" - RyggTard

Meanwhile the rest of the nation was basking in record heat.

Why do you feel a need to fixate on exceptions away from the average Tard Boy?

Do you have something to hide?
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Mar 27, 2012
"However, the last century has seen a 1 degree C increase in temperature, but no corresponding increase in extreme weather events."- RlkTard

Climate change linked to recent weather extremes

http://www.cbc.ca...nge.html

Extreme Weather of Last Decade Part of Larger Pattern Linked to Global Warming

http://www.scienc...3206.htm

Planet hit by more storms, heatwaves and floods than ever before as evidence points to human-induced climate change

http://www.guardi...e-change

Decade of Extreme Weather Bears Fingerprint of Climate Change

http://www.livesc...ate.html
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
You mean the 14 year graph that shows a .1'C warming per century?

"Their graph is set up such that a 14 year long flat period would be such a statistical improbability as to essentially be impossible." - UBVonTard

"I'm using much longer time periods (10 and 14 years) and my time periods begin and end normally" - UBVonTard

Climate is defined on time periods of 30 years or longer. Your 14 years of data is not long enough to determine a climate trend. Further the fluctuations are within the 0.5'C that can be expected from natural climate events, since you have made no attempt to control for them or anything else.

Finally your start point is cherry picked and statistically insignificant, as shown by the fact that selecting earlier years results in dramatically different slopes from the one you report.

Clearly you are trying to lie with statistics.
Your oil industry masters are pleased.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
What an odd question. It illustrates nicely your delusional state.

"How many people who have had indoor plumbing, a solid roof over their head voluntarily go back to huts?" - RyggTard

No one has asked you to.
No one has told you that you will need to.

It is only in your delusional mind that you either believe this to be the case, or wish others to believe this is the case.

Such delusions are common among Libertarians, Randites, and other Conservative Extremists.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
Meanwhile a the objective of a honest scientist is to follow the data where it leads him/her.

Thank you for clearly stating your anti-science objective bias.

"My objective is to show objectively that global warming has stalled." - UbvonTard

You will not be able to do so with 14 years of data that start with the largest ElNino event ever recorded.

Scientific integrity demands that you start at a statistically valid starting point.

But since you and your fellow denialists have no integrity then you start at the warmest point you can find in order to artificially and dishonestly flatten the trend.

Others have done scientifically valid calculations - removing ElNino and LaNina noise and other factors from the data and have found no decrease in the rate of warming.

You and your denialist brothers can't even perform a simple and honest grade school average.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Mar 28, 2012
@avontuba: climate changes happen, and are measured, over really long periods of time. The stalled warning in the 2000's or the cooling between 1940 and 1970 are no more meaningful than the short periods of fast warming between 1910 and 1940, or between 1970 and 2000.
"Climate is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period. The standard averaging period is 30 years, but other periods may be used depending on the purpose."

http://en.wikiped...finition

Claims of either stopped or rapidly accelerating warming are misinformed at best, dishonest at worst.
If you don't want believe it, that's a choice you make. But the science is clear. Global warming essentially stalled out about 14 years ago.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Mar 28, 2012
@rubberman,

The effects on climate due to the gradual increase in temperature are manifested in the form of extreme weather, further amplified by the natural varibles at play such as an El nino and the NAO.
First it was "Global Warming" and when people didn't buy that it became "Climate Change" and when people didn't buy that it became "Extreme Weather." Lately, it seems to have reverted to "Global Warming" again. It's all the same hogwash. There is no evidence to suggest the weather is any more extreme now, than it ever was. It's just reported more thoroughly.

It's the same with crime and war. Most people think we live in an unusually violent period in history. Two recent books argue the world has never seen so little war and violence. Steven Pinker, author of The Better Angels of Our Nature, and Joshua Goldstein, author of Winning the War on War.

http://www.npr.or...rn-times
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
Over such short periods of time Global average temperatures can change by around 0.5'C. So any change up to that magnitude is within the natural range of variability.

So any change at all up to 0.5'C over this period is statistically insignificant and neither points to an increase, decrease, or no change in the climate system.

You need to go back to grade 7 and re-learn grade school statistics.

"Global warming essentially stalled out about 14 years ago." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Mar 28, 2012
Climate change linked to recent weather extremes

http://www.cbc.ca...nge.html

Extreme Weather of Last Decade Part of Larger Pattern Linked to Global Warming

http://www.scienc...3206.htm

Planet hit by more storms, heatwaves and floods than ever before as evidence points to human-induced climate change

http://www.guardi...e-change

Decade of Extreme Weather Bears Fingerprint of Climate Change

http://www.livesc...ate.html

"There is no evidence to suggest the weather is any more extreme now, than it ever was. It's just reported more thoroughly." - UbVontard
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2012
@ubavontuba; Nice graphs and I love the wood for trees website; but you need to looks at what is statistically valid to make your case. For example, how do you explain this graph?

http://www.woodfo.../to:2012
It looks like a data error. If you read the site, the owner talks about data issues. BEST data was added to the site recently (29th October 2011).

Anyway, like any statistical anomaly, you check and verify.

Here's the official BEST data graph:

http://berkeleyea...nalysis/

Notice there is no such spike and it shows warming has stalled out recently, as well.

And other WoodForTrees land temperature data sets show the flat period.

http://www.woodfo.../to:2012

Therefore, that BEST spike is a data anomaly from WoodForTrees.org. It can be discarded (I've sent them an e-mail about it).

That is actually more like what we are seeing in global warming issues.
No it's not.

ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (11) Mar 28, 2012
Also deniers, look at this beauty of a plot;

http://www.woodfo.../to:2012


I've shown this before. Look at the global temperature during the same period:

http://www.woodfo.../to:2012

There seems to be a disconnect, don't you think?

Isn't this an updated version of a graph Al-Gore presented in his movie, "An Inconvenient Truth"? Why yes it is.
All you've done is demonstrate temperature doesn't necessarily correlate with atmospheric CO2 content.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
You mean the 14 year graph that shows a .1'C warming per century?
It shows a slight cooling trend:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

Climate is defined on time periods of 30 years or longer. Your 14 years of data is not long enough to determine a climate trend.
"Climate is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period. The standard averaging period is 30 years, but other periods may be used depending on the purpose."

http://en.wikiped...finition

Further the fluctuations are within the 0.5'C that can be expected from natural climate events, since you have made no attempt to control for them or anything else.
That's right, the data is "unadjusted." The control is the linear trend.

cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2012
Then why is the trend line strongly upward?

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

http://www.woodfo...10/trend

"It shows a slight cooling trend:" - ubvonTard
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
Finally your start point is cherry picked and statistically insignificant, as shown by the fact that selecting earlier years results in dramatically different slopes from the one you report.
False. My start point begins at the beginning of a year, and my end point ends at the end of a year. Therefore all full year cycles are included (it's statistically random).

The only "cherry picking" I did was to extend the timeline as far back as possible (using full years) in which there is no apparent global warming trend (14 years). If you want to obfuscate by stating there has been global warming in the past 15 or more years, be my guest, but you know it'll feel like a lie.

The fact remains. For the past 14 years, globally warming has stalled.

Clearly you are trying to lie with statistics.
Nope. That'd be you. You're trying to cover up the fact global warming has stalled for 14 years.

Your oil industry masters are pleased.
I'm an environmentalist, by profession.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.7 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2012
Why did you remove the upward trend line?

http://www.youtub...ure=plcp

"I've shown this before. Look at the global temperature during the same period:" - UbvonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2012
And your starting year is cherry picked to be among the warmest years ever recorded in order to bias the start point upward and flatten your plot.

Why not select the year before or after which are more representative of the period, or select the running average for the year?

It is because your desire is to lie with phony chery picked statistics.

"My start point begins at the beginning of a year, and my end point ends at the end of a year." - UbvonTard

Thank you for admitting to your dishonesty.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
Meanwhile a the objective of a honest scientist is to follow the data where it leads him/her.
Then why are you refusing to acknowledge the GW stall?

Scientific integrity demands that you start at a statistically valid starting point.
I did. Is t my fault you're displeased?

But since you and your fellow denialists have no integrity then you start at the warmest point you can find in order to artificially and dishonestly flatten the trend.
Nope. I started with the present and worked backwards, in full years

Others have done scientifically valid calculations - removing ElNino and LaNina noise and other factors from the data and have found no decrease in the rate of warming.
ElNino and LaNina aren't "noise." They're environmental factors.

You and your denialist brothers can't even perform a simple and honest grade school average.
I didn't make the data. I only used it (properly, I might add).
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2012
But hasn't stalled for 13 or 15 years.

Odd how it only seems to have stalled for you choice of a beginning year, 1998. The warmest year on record which was made warm by the largest ElNino event ever recorded.

Clearly if the computed rate of warming goes from strongly positive, to near zero to strongly positive, over three consecutive years, then your choice of zero is statistical fraud.

Odd isn't it how Fraud and Denialism are so intimately connected.

"You're trying to cover up the fact global warming has stalled for 14 years." - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
Over such short periods of time Global average temperatures can change by around 0.5'C. So any change up to that magnitude is within the natural range of variability.

So any change at all up to 0.5'C over this period is statistically insignificant and neither points to an increase, decrease, or no change in the climate system.

You need to go back to grade 7 and re-learn grade school statistics.
You need to go back to school and learn how to read a graph. And if you truly think it's so insignificant, why won't you admit there's been no global warming in this period?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
Climate change linked to recent weather extremes

http://www.cbc.ca...nge.html

Extreme Weather of Last Decade Part of Larger Pattern Linked to Global Warming

http://www.scienc...3206.htm

Planet hit by more storms, heatwaves and floods than ever before as evidence points to human-induced climate change

http://www.guardi...e-change

Decade of Extreme Weather Bears Fingerprint of Climate Change

http://www.livesc...ate.html
You're editing your posts such that your links won't work.

In my experience, I remember extreme weather being more common in my youth, than now.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2012
Because there is no valid statistical basis for such a nonsense claim.

"Then why are you refusing to acknowledge the GW stall?" - UbVonTard

http://data.giss....g.A2.gif

Do you intend to remain a dishonest fraud for the rest of your life?
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Mar 28, 2012
Really now... Just look at that flat line.

http://data.giss....g.A2.gif

"You need to go back to school and learn how to read a graph." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2012
Another lie in a long stream of lies.

"I'm an environmentalist, by profession." - UbVonTard

http://www.youtub...ure=plcp
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2012
Then why is the trend line strongly upward?

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

http://www.woodfo...10/trend
There you go with the obfuscating. How's it feel to be a bold-faced liar?

Grow up. Changing the data to achieve a desired result is not science. I've clearly shown that discounting noise, there's been no global warming for 14 years.

ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (12) Mar 28, 2012
Why did you remove the upward trend line?

http://www.youtub...ure=plcp
Maybe the question should be: Why didn't Howhot include a trend line in his graph?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2012
And your starting year is cherry picked to be among the warmest years ever recorded in order to bias the start point upward and flatten your plot.
No it's not. My graph includes nine or ten of the warmest years on record.

Why not select the year before or after which are more representative of the period,
In what way are they more representative? As it is, going so far back forced the line to flatten, from an otherwise cooling trend from the past 11 years.

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

or select the running average for the year?

It is because your desire is to lie with phony chery picked statistics.
Nope. It was my desire to show that global warming has stalled, because it has.

Thank you for admitting to your dishonesty.
obviously, the dishonest one here is you.

Admit it. There's been no significant global warming for 14 years.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2012
Repeat post (corrected):
Meanwhile a the objective of a honest scientist is to follow the data where it leads him/her.
Then why are you refusing to acknowledge the GW stall?

Scientific integrity demands that you start at a statistically valid starting point.
I did. Is t my fault you're displeased?

But since you and your fellow denialists have no integrity then you start at the warmest point you can find in order to artificially and dishonestly flatten the trend.
Nope. I started with the present and worked backwards, in full years.

Others have done scientifically valid calculations - removing ElNino and LaNina noise and other factors from the data and have found no decrease in the rate of warming.
ElNino and LaNina aren't "noise." They're environmental factors.

You and your denialist brothers can't even perform a simple and honest grade school average.
I didn't make the data. I only used it (properly, I might add).
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 28, 2012
in the United States, extremes of high temperatures have been occurring at a rate of twice those of cold extremes (Meehl et al. 2009), and this has accelerated considerably since June 2010 to a factor of 2.7, and in the summer of 2011 to a factor of over 8

So from 2 to 2.7 to 8 in just the last few years! What is the next number in this sequence?

Answer (so far this year):

For the year-to-date, there have been 14,737 warm temperature records set or tied, compared to 1,296 cold records a ratio of about 11-to-1.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2012
But hasn't stalled for 13 or 15 years.
This is an incorrect statement. The correct statement would be: Statistically significant global warming ended 14 years ago.

Odd how it only seems to have stalled for you choice of a beginning year, 1998. The warmest year on record which was made warm by the largest ElNino event ever recorded.
I've already discussed this with you. It's not the warmest year on record. 2005 and 2010 are the two warmest years on record.

Clearly if the computed rate of warming goes from strongly positive, to near zero to strongly positive, over three consecutive years, then your choice of zero is statistical fraud.
Okay, have it your way. Let's start in 2001 and instead of saying it stalled, we can say we're now in a period of global cooling! Is that what you want?

Odd isn't it how Fraud and Denialism are so intimately connected.
Indeed, as you're perpetuating a fraud by denying global warming has stalled out!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
Because there is no valid statistical basis for such a nonsense claim.

http://data.giss....g.A2.gif
As noisy and as broad a range as that graph is, the stall can clearly be seen there at the end.

Do you intend to remain a dishonest fraud for the rest of your life?
If I'm the dishonest one, why is it you're the one afraid of the data? Why are you trying to cover up the data of tha last 14 years?

There, there, Vendy. I didn't mean to burst your little belief system bubble. But it'll be alright. Let Mommy give you a big hug and kiss it all better. XOXO
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2012
Really now... Just look at that flat line.

http://data.giss....g.A2.gif
The five year running mean is quite flat there in the end. But you probably don't want to look that close.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Mar 28, 2012
Another lie in a long stream of lies.
From you.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Mar 28, 2012
in the United States, extremes of high temperatures have been occurring at a rate of twice those of cold extremes (Meehl et al. 2009), and this has accelerated considerably since June 2010 to a factor of 2.7, and in the summer of 2011 to a factor of over 8

So from 2 to 2.7 to 8 in just the last few years! What is the next number in this sequence?

Answer (so far this year):

For the year-to-date, there have been 14,737 warm temperature records set or tied, compared to 1,296 cold records a ratio of about 11-to-1.
So what? Maybe you think a couple of hundred years of measurement, in a relatively globally cool period, is somehow representative and should stand for all time?

Get a grip. We live on a dynamic world.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Mar 28, 2012
GIGO
It doesn't matter the computing power if the program and data are inaccurate.
Editors, delete again, if you must, but article asserted the simulation is better because of computing power.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 28, 2012
That pretty much perfectly encapsulates your Libertarian/Randite ideology Tard Boy.

Thanx for he synopsis.

"GIGO" - RyggTard
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Mar 29, 2012
Somehow R2 and Ubatube are missing the full impact of these numbers. What these "New" models are predicting using the scatter shot approach and the @home model of supercomputing; is that we humans are doing far more damage to the climate(s) than was previously predicted.

You are delusional if you think this is GIGO. Quite the contrary, it's very sobering if you give a F. And from what I can tell locally, the environment has been changing over the last decade. It's weather I'm not used to; with more extremes, and more storms.
It fits with the computer models.

MarkyMark
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 29, 2012
It really amazes me how Denilists ( big oil supporters, Tea Party Cultists ) keep on like they do, cherry picking data and excluding the rest to support there paymasters agenda. Its. Bit like working out the average of say Ten numbers and excluding or altering some of them to make the result fit there needs.

In otherwords this is not science its Marketing!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 29, 2012
Somehow R2 and Ubatube are missing the full impact of these numbers. What these "New" models are predicting using the scatter shot approach and the @home model of supercomputing; is that we humans are doing far more damage to the climate(s) than was previously predicted.
No we're not. If this was true, global warming wouldn't have stalled out 14 years ago.

You are delusional if you think this is GIGO. Quite the contrary, it's very sobering if you give a F. And from what I can tell locally, the environment has been changing over the last decade. It's weather I'm not used to; with more extremes, and more storms.
It fits with the computer models.
Hogwash. Just because things are reported more frequently these days, doesn't mean they're more prevalent.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 29, 2012
It really amazes me how Denilists ( big oil supporters, Tea Party Cultists ) keep on like they do, cherry picking data and excluding the rest to support there paymasters agenda. Its. Bit like working out the average of say Ten numbers and excluding or altering some of them to make the result fit there needs.

In otherwords this is not science its Marketing!
You mean like how VDtard tried to hide the fact that global warming stalled out 14 years ago?
Howhot
4 / 5 (4) Mar 30, 2012
You mean like jow XXX tried to hide the fact that global warming stalled out 14 years ago?


OH PLEASE FOOL, PLEASE explain how it stalled out. I really dare you to research that claim. Report back with whatever junk science you can dig up.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2012
You mean like jow VDtard tried to hide the fact that global warming stalled out 14 years ago?


OH PLEASE FOOL, PLEASE explain how it stalled out. I really dare you to research that claim. Report back with whatever junk science you can dig up.


I have plenty of evidence. What would you believe? Name your parameters beforehand (VDtard moves the goal posts and cherry picks the data to suit his agenda).

Here's the HadCRUT3 data:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

Is that good enough? If not, why not?

It get's even better from 2001:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

El_Nexus
1 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
Tubatard, you are a liar and you have been caught in your lies.

You deliberately picked 14 because it's the only year for ages that will make your bovine excrement story work; because it starts at the hottest year in recorded history. 13 won't do it, you'd get an upward trend. 15 won't do it. You'd get an upward trend. Neither will just about any year you choose. You cherry picked your data to peddle a story that you know to be a lie, because you are a bad and fundamentally dishonest person. And we caught you at it. Your argument has been demolished using actual facts, which have been provided to you and which you obviously haven't even looked at because you keep just stating your debunked gibberish over and over and over as though it's fact (which it isn't; it's lies).

You are a wilful liar and a terrible person. Fortunately your lies are stupid, feeble, pathetic, worthless, contemptible and unconvincing. Just like you.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2012
Tubatard, you are a liar and you have been caught in your lies.
No, that'd be you.

You deliberately picked 14 because it's the only year for ages that will make your bovine excrement story work;
I chose 14 because that's how long the period is that we've had no net global warming (duh).

Other years work even better.

11 years ago we started a cooling trend:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

10 years:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

9 years:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

...and so on.

because it starts at the hottest year in recorded history.
Get your facts straight before you spout off. 2005 and 2010 were warmer.

"2010 tied with 2005 as the warmest such period on record"

http://www.noaane...ats.html

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2012
13 won't do it, you'd get an upward trend.
Right, it's a data spike during the period.

15 won't do it.
Right, because it includes the last year of net warming.

Neither will just about any year you choose.
I just showed above, this isn't true. In fact we've been in a cooling trend for more than a decade.

You cherry picked your data to peddle a story that you know to be a lie,
No, I chose the data which shows no net warming for as many years as possible. That period is 14 complete years long (so far). I'm not arguing it didn't warm before that.

because you are a bad and fundamentally dishonest person.
How is it bad to expose the truth?

And we caught you at it. Your argument has been demolished using actual facts,
No it hasn't. First, you'd have to (at the least) bring your own valid data for the period in question.

which have been provided to you and which you obviously haven't even looked at
I'm the only one providing references.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2012
because you keep just stating your debunked gibberish over and over and over as though it's fact (which it isn't; it's lies).
Again, bring on the data and references for the period in question.

You are a wilful liar and a terrible person. Fortunately your lies are stupid, feeble, pathetic, worthless, contemptible and unconvincing. Just like you.
This appears to be your problem.

You claimed 14 years is the only length of time which works (lie).

You claimed 1998 was the hottest year in history (lie).

You claimed my argument was demolished using actual facts (lie).

And you made your argument a personal attack against my character, rather than against the facts (terrible)

So, it looks like you're the "wilful liar and a terrible person." (sic)

Grow up and be glad someone finally told you the truth.

CarolinaScotsman
1 / 5 (1) Mar 31, 2012
So many models, so many results. If you don't like the latest model, wait a week.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
UbVonTard is suffering from a form of mental illness as the following chart clearly shows.

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
TabulaMentis
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 31, 2012
UbVonTard is suffering from a form of mental illness as the following chart clearly shows.
I fear to click on your link for it may contain a rootkit since you hate America so much.
Lurker2358
2.8 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2012
"What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years."


that's really not true, when you examine the data.

Before 1998, you would expect 1998 to be a mere "up anomaly" and then go back to some sort of normal. That didn't happen.

Now, nearly every year since 1998 has been nearly as hot as 1998 was.

If you do ten year running averages, it's as hot or hotter right now than every before, depending on who's data set you use.

The fact that it hasn't gained a degree C since 1998 or some other ridiculous crap doesn't mean the warming stopped.

Remember, 1998 was an up anomaly. Since then the neutral years and even down anomalies are nearly as hot as the 1998 up anomaly.

That's the real problem, and it greatly supports the notion of prolonged and sustained warming.

When your down anomalies start to be higher than previous up anomalies, you've obviously got significant change.
Lurker2358
2.8 / 5 (5) Mar 31, 2012
I mean look at that!

The huge 2008 down anomaly did not make it back down to the long term average!

Shouldn't that make anyone realize that the global climate is seriously screwed up?

Or look at the face the 14 lowest arctic sea ice volumes all occurred in the past 14 years, 13 of which were lower than 1998!?!? I mean, obviously no correlation there, right?
djr
5 / 5 (2) Mar 31, 2012
As noisy and as broad a range as that graph is, the stall can clearly be seen there at the end. So what? Look very carefully at the whole graph. http://www.nasa.g...raph_lrg[1].jpg Pick the period 1948 thru 65. It shows a plateau. Irrelevant to the big picture. There is a clear upward trend over the past 100 yrs. Yes - some plateaus in there - big deal - that does not detract from the big picture. I know weather does not equal climate - but here in Oklahoma - we just broke a zillion heat records this summer - had no winter to speak of - and just had the hottest March on record. Same story for the whole U.S. and Canada. http://www.wunder...cle.html I think this year is going to collapse your "no warming for 14 yrs narrative" - but no data will be good enough for you - some web site somewhere will be able to cherry pick some data and keep your argument going.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Mar 31, 2012
Is there a plateau in the data?

Yup.

Is it statistically significant?

Nope.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2012
"What is happening to global temperatures in reality? The answer is: almost nothing for more than 10 years."


that's really not true, when you examine the data.
Right. For the last 10 years, the climate trend has leaned toward cooling.

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

Before 1998, you would expect 1998 to be a mere "up anomaly" and then go back to some sort of normal. That didn't happen.
How do you know it didn't arrive at a normal?

Now, nearly every year since 1998 has been nearly as hot as 1998 was.

If you do ten year running averages, it's as hot or hotter right now than every before, depending on who's data set you use.
Sure, but it's not getting hotter. Global warming stalled out about 14 years ago. That is, there's been no net global warming from 1998.

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 01, 2012
The fact that it hasn't gained a degree C since 1998 or some other ridiculous crap doesn't mean the warming stopped.
Then how would you define "stopped?"

Remember, 1998 was an up anomaly. Since then the neutral years and even down anomalies are nearly as hot as the 1998 up anomaly.
Actually, we've had two warmer years since.

That's the real problem, and it greatly supports the notion of prolonged and sustained warming.
How is it a "problem?" Didn't you want global warming to stop? Is not warming the new problem now?

When your down anomalies start to be higher than previous up anomalies, you've obviously got significant change.
"Significant?" In what way are the current temperatures significant?

Rog_rio_Maestri
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
Dear Phlipper (Mar 26, 2012)
There is a small problem in ice cores, the temporal resolution to other inter-glacial. See (Petit et al 1999). The extracted samples of these holes are divided in segments of tenths of centimeters. These segments had his age dated. Considering all determination corrects,
we see that the elapsed time between the base and the top of each ice sample is roughly 450 years (more exactly 300 to 550).
What is the problem in all that? Simple: means properties which varies during 300 years cant be used to estimate peaks in 40 to 60 years. This is a basic signal analysis problem, the sample rate theorem Nyquist-Shanonn. When we desire to reconstruct a signal with B frequency spectrum range we need to guaranty 2B frequency sample of the original signal. If we want to reconstruct the behavior of any variable in an historic period of 50 years, a sample with 25 years is required, not 300 years.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 01, 2012
I mean look at that!

The huge 2008 down anomaly did not make it back down to the long term average!

Shouldn't that make anyone realize that the global climate is seriously screwed up?
Again, screwed up how? Didn't you know the biosphere is booming?

Or look at the face the 14 lowest arctic sea ice volumes all occurred in the past 14 years, 13 of which were lower than 1998!?!? I mean, obviously no correlation there, right?
So? The Antarctic sea ice is growing. Why isn't anyone complaining about that?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2012
As noisy and as broad a range as that graph is, the stall can clearly be seen there at the end.
So what? Look very carefully at the whole graph.
Yeah, so?

I think this year is going to collapse your "no warming for 14 yrs narrative"
Maybe, maybe not. That graph is too coarse to make a determination. this one says otherwise:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend

- but no data will be good enough for you - some web site somewhere will be able to cherry pick some data and keep your argument going.
I'm using the official HadCRUT3 data. NASA is using GISTEMP data, which I've previously admitted does tend toward warming. But the other three major indexes (HADCRUT3, RSS and UAH) do not agree with GISTEMP, making it a bit anomolous. Even so, GISTEMP shows no global warming for the past 10 years.

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2012
Pick the period 1948 thru 65. It shows a plateau. Irrelevant to the big picture. There is a clear upward trend over the past 100 yrs. Yes - some plateaus in there - big deal - that does not detract from the big picture. I know weather does not equal climate - but here in Oklahoma - we just broke a zillion heat records this summer - had no winter to speak of - and just had the hottest March on record. Same story for the whole U.S. and Canada.
So?

I think this year is going to collapse your "no warming for 14 yrs narrative" - but no data will be good enough for you - some web site somewhere will be able to cherry pick some data and keep your argument going.
I only use data from official sources. Arguably, this actually puts me at a disadvantage, because most of the official sources both stress, and seek to verify/justify global warming concerns.

I think what you're really saying is, no resource will convince you global warming has stalled.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
Is there a plateau in the data?

Yup.
Thanks for a little honesty! I truly didn't think you had it in you.

Is it statistically significant?

Nope.
Time will tell. But it is interesting.
djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
"That graph is too coarse to make a determination. this one says otherwise:" Perfect example - so you can pick a graph that shows a subset of data - that supports your predetermined view. I could take the same exact data set http://www.woodfo...12/trend and show a long term data trend that is very conclusive - our climate is warming. This first makes a sham of your claim to only use data from official sources. No - you cherry pick data from official sources. But there is a bigger point. From 2 perspectives it makes sense for us to develop alternative energy. Both the energy independence argument, and the climate change argument are compelling to me. As a gardener - I am hyper sensitive to how dependent we are on the weather for our food source. Here in the middle of the U.S. we are drawing down the Ogallala reservoir at an alarming rate. When it is gone - we will be looking at a collapse (cont)
djr
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
of agriculture as we know it. Read articles like this to see how dire the situation is becoming http://www.texast...uldnt-g/ Yes - time will tell how this plays out. The science is telling us that we have a problem. Obstructionists like you are trying to hijack the conversation - and sadly the policy - and you clearly don't care if your obstructionism delays our response to what is clearly a problem on a catastrophic scale. I don't believe that people like you will be willing to take any responsibility for solving the problem when it does finally become undeniable - you will morph your position - and somehow you will be able to sleep at night.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
"Last summer, during the height of the drought, West Texas farmers kept watering their cotton crops despite knowing they wouldn't grow. They needed to do so to qualify for federal crop insurance."

And the way AGWites want to 'fix' the problem is to impose MORE stupid govt regulations that kept TX farmers wasting water.
Do AGWites propose to gut stupid regulations and enable rapidly adaptable market solutions?

The obstructions are the socialist who want to force THEIR centrally planned solution.
djr
5 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
Surprise Rygg - I fully agree with your assessment of the stupid gvt policies that forced farmers to water crops that they knew would not produce - total idiocy - and an example of the stupid American gvt that sets policies based on narrow interest groups that always hijack the process - take a look at the ethanol debacle. Now - that has nothing to do with the reality that our globe is warming - as evidenced by every data set on the woodfortrees site - the scientists are telling us we have a serious problem - and it would be smart and prudent of us to listen. Of course the fundamentalist perspectives such as yours want to obstruct progress - as it conflicts with your world view.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2012
Perfect example - so you can pick a graph that shows a subset of data - that supports your predetermined view. I could take the same exact data set and show a long term data trend that is very conclusive - our climate is warming.
Irrelevant. I never claimed there was no warming before the recent stall. In fact, I've stated otherwise multiple times.

This first makes a sham of your claim to only use data from official sources.
No it doesn't.

No - you cherry pick data from official sources.
And AGWites will try to overwhelm the current signal with excessive data (another form of cherry picking).

But there is a bigger point. From 2 perspectives it makes sense for us to develop alternative energy. Both the energy independence argument, and the climate change argument are compelling to me.
I agree with the former, but not the latter. However there are other environmental concerns to consider.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
As a gardener - I am hyper sensitive to how dependent we are on the weather for our food source.
Weather isn't climate.

Here in the middle of the U.S. we are drawing down the Ogallala reservoir at an alarming rate.
This has nothing to do with climate. It's a usage problem. However recently increasing precipitation, and modified farming techniques have slowed the aquifer's draw down.

Obstructionists like you are trying to hijack the conversation - and sadly the policy - and you clearly don't care if your obstructionism delays our response to what is clearly a problem on a catastrophic scale.
On the contrary. I care a lot. I care for the truth. You, as a localized gardener fear GW, thinking it'll dry out your crops. In the larger context of global climate, this simply isn't true. A warmer earth supports MORE life, not less.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
I don't believe that people like you will be willing to take any responsibility for solving the problem when it does finally become undeniable - you will morph your position - and somehow you will be able to sleep at night.
If a problem arises that needs addressing, it should be addressed. So far, the climate change we've had, has generally been a boon to the environment and mankind. Why fix what ain't broke?

djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 01, 2012
"However recently increasing precipitation, and modified farming techniques have slowed the aquifer's draw down."
Do you have a source to support the assertion that there has been increased precipitation over the states that draw from the Ogallala?
Do you have a source to support the assertion that climate change to date has been a boon to the environment and mankind?
djr
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
"On the contrary. I care a lot. I care for the truth." Can help me understand how you can claim to care about the truth - but then attack every article that mentions global warming - including cherry picking data in order to support a pre-selected conclusion. It seems to me much more that you have a political agenda you are trying to promote - and that you wish to spread confusion-in order to affect the dialogue - and therefore political process. Surely this is evident in the way you select certain dates from the woodfortrees data sets - rather than looking at the whole data sets. No matter what argument people use to demonstrate that science is telling us we have a problem - you find a counter argument to support your position. It does not seem to me you are interested in truth. If you were - you would listen to the scientists who are trying to tell us something.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 01, 2012
More than 40,000 Europeans died as a result of the 2003 European heat wave.

France was hit especially hard. The heat wave led to health crises in several countries and combined with drought to create a crop shortfall in Southern Europe.

In the 2010 Russian Heat wave, At least 7,000 people have died in Moscow as a result of the heat, and the nationwide death toll is likely to be at least twice that figure, according to Jeff Masters, co- founder of Weather Underground, a 15-year-old Internet weather service that gathers information from around the world.

"OVER the past 14 years, a tiny insect no bigger than a grain of rice has laid waste a swathe of British Columbias forests so vast that the rust-red wasteland is visible from space." - http://www.econom...11671362

"So far, the climate change we've had, has generally been a boon to the environment and mankind." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 01, 2012
In other words they continue to use water at an unsustainable rate that continues to deplete the aquifer. They are just overconsuming the resource at a slower rate.

"However recently increasing precipitation, and modified farming techniques have slowed the aquifer's draw down." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 01, 2012
This is what you get when the Libertarian vision of all consuming self interest takes precedence over the greater public good.

"Last summer, during the height of the drought, West Texas farmers kept watering their cotton crops despite knowing they wouldn't grow." - RyggTard

RyggTard hates America. No one blames him for that.
kaasinees
1 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Ryggtard makes good points somtimes but than he goes to blame socialists for it. Typical behavior for his kind and his agenda is blutenly obvious.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 01, 2012
Ryggtard makes good points somtimes but than he goes to blame socialists for it. Typical behavior for his kind and his agenda is blutenly obvious.

I give credit where credit is due.
and it would be smart and prudent of us to listen.

And do what?
The AGWites what to centrally plan the world economy. That is called socialism.
They do NOT want to support economic liberty, free markets and technology that can innovate and adapt to change. Adapting to changes is the ONLY response we can safely do without creating severe unintended consequences.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Apr 01, 2012
Then you should be spending your days giving your Libertarian Liedeology credit for destroying your own country.

"I give credit where credit is due." - RyggTard

After all. That has long been the Libertarian Goal.

"Starve the Beast" is a Libertarian program.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (1) Apr 01, 2012
As a Libertarian, most of what comes from RyggTard is simply lies.

Like the following statement.

"The AGWites what to centrally plan the world economy." - RyggTard

The principle source of lies in America these days are the Libertarian Corporate Propaganda front groups like the Heritage Foundation, CATO Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Faux news, etc.

And in U.K. you have the Rupert Murdoch rags engaged in all manner of dishonesty and crime. And yes. Rupert Murdoch is a self professed Libertairan and former member of the Board of Directors for the CATO Institute.

When something smells rotten, it's probably Libertarian.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 01, 2012
"Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme" designed to suck money out of rich countries, according to a letter leaked Tuesday by the Liberals."
http://www.cbc.ca...oto.html
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
"However recently increasing precipitation, and modified farming techniques have slowed the aquifer's draw down."
Do you have a source to support the assertion that there has been increased precipitation over the states that draw from the Ogallala?
Sure, but it's hard to get regional data, as weather stations tend to report individually. Here's one from Amarillo Texas. Amarillo's average annual rainfall is 19.71 inches. Notice the last several years have all been well over 20 inches.

http://www.hpwd.c...012).pdf

And this from the NOAA:

January

The Southern Plains and the Great Lakes were wetter than average for the month, with Texas having above-average precipitation for the second month in a row.

http://www.noaa.g...ats.html

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
And this from a climate change alarmist site:

Annual precipitation of rain has increased by 74% in the western U.S. from 1949 to 2004

http://web.mit.ed...te.shtml

Do you have a source to support the assertion that climate change to date has been a boon to the environment and mankind?
Sure.

This is from nature.com magazine:

"They found that over a period of almost two decades, the Earth as a whole became more bountiful by a whopping 6.2%... Their 2004 study, and other more recent ones, point to the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, fertilizing the biota and resulting in the increased green side effect."

http://scintilla....e/317102

And that's from a 2004 report! It's gotten even better since.

"...we now believe that warming has been beneficial for vegetation throughout much of the Northern Hemisphere"

http://www.worldc...inues-di
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
Can help me understand how you can claim to care about the truth - but then attack every article that mentions global warming
Because the truth is the truth. The global warming alarmists would have you buy a doom and gloom scenario. They generally won't tell you that the GW we've had so far has generally been beneficial.

- including cherry picking data in order to support a pre-selected conclusion.
As discussed before, I don't cherry pick data, and I only use official global temperature data. If you don't want to believe it, you're free to make that choice.

It seems to me much more that you have a political agenda you are trying to promote - and that you wish to spread confusion-in order to affect the dialogue - and therefore political process.
I have no agenda, beyond finding and exposing the truth.

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
Surely this is evident in the way you select certain dates from the woodfortrees data sets - rather than looking at the whole data sets.
So, for example, you're saying if I want to know the current yield per acre of my farm and whether production is holding steady or not, I must know the full history of the farm's yield per acre from the date of original settlement? Really? How do farmers manage to get anything done?

No matter what argument people use to demonstrate that science is telling us we have a problem - you find a counter argument to support your position.
That's not true. I've readily agreed we had global warming through 1997, for instance.

It does not seem to me you are interested in truth. If you were - you would listen to the scientists who are trying to tell us something.
Where do you think my data comes from?

GW alarmists, like people in general, are simply afraid of change. It doesn't matter to them that change can be beneficial.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 02, 2012
More than 40,000 Europeans died as a result of the 2003 European heat wave.
That's certainly a tragedy, but millions died of famine as the medieval warm period ended. Is this what you want? ...cool the earth and start a worldwide famine?

"The end of the Medieval Warm Period coincided with the onset of the Great Famine"

http://en.wikiped...0%931317

"OVER the past 14 years, a tiny insect no bigger than a grain of rice has laid waste a swathe of British Columbias forests so vast that the rust-red wasteland is visible from space."
It's not as bad as they thought.

"BCs Chief Forester says pine beetle kill wasn't as destructive as first feared"

http://foresttalk...-feared/

and:

http://cfs.nrcan....pages/49

This happened in my region during a drought too. It only took about a decade for the forest to recover.

kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 02, 2012
The AGWites what to centrally plan the world economy. That is called socialism.

I am sorry tardboy the terms are contradictory.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) Apr 02, 2012
The AGWites what to centrally plan the world economy. That is called socialism.

I am sorry tardboy the terms are contradictory.

Central planning => socialism => central planning.
This is what socialism IS.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2012
The AGWites what to centrally plan the world economy. That is called socialism.

I am sorry tardboy the terms are contradictory.

Central planning => socialism => central planning.
This is what socialism IS.
You're being too polite. Call it what it is: Stalinism.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 03, 2012
The AGWites what to centrally plan the world economy. That is called socialism.

I am sorry tardboy the terms are contradictory.

Central planning => socialism => central planning.
This is what socialism IS.
You're being too polite. Call it what it is: Stalinism.


Stalinism is just one flavor of socialism.
Vendicar_Decarian
not rated yet Apr 04, 2012
Nazism is just another flavour of Neo Conservatism

"Stalinism is just one flavor of socialism." - RyggTard

Stalin was a foremost a Capitalist who needed money to purchase western technology in his quest to turn Czarist Russia into a modern technological nation.

He succeeded, but the rapid change could not tolerate the irrational dissent of the Kulaks who decided that Famine would be their planned response to unreasonable taxation.

And famine there was.

The American decimation of it's native population in which millions of Native Americans were murdered, or starved is a similar period where Capitalism was again responsible for the deaths of millions of people.

Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Apr 04, 2012
Harper is a similar to American Conservatives in his comments because he has to cozy up to the oil industry in Alberta.

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper once called the Kyoto accord a "socialist scheme"" - RyggTard

Politicians say many silly things in order to purchase votes.

Howhot
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 05, 2012
Yeah; I like this nutcase quote;
You're being too polite. Call it what it is: Stalinism.


The little uba just doesn't know what a totalitarian is from a french fry. I apologize to European (and Canadian) friends that the US education system has created such uneducated poke weed.

R2; "Nazism is just one flavor of fascism"
"Stalinism is just one flavor of socialism."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2012
Yeah; I like this nutcase quote;
You're being too polite. Call it what it is: Stalinism.


The little uba just doesn't know what a totalitarian is from a french fry. I apologize to European (and Canadian) friends that the US education system has created such uneducated poke weed.

R2; "Nazism is just one flavor of fascism"
"Stalinism is just one flavor of socialism."

Says the moron who wants to create "re-education camps."
Vendicar_Decarian
1 / 5 (1) Apr 06, 2012
UbVonTard would first have to be educated, in order to be re-educated.

He seems to be resisting Education with all his might.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) Apr 06, 2012
Yeah; I like this nutcase quote;
You're being too polite. Call it what it is: Stalinism.


The little uba just doesn't know what a totalitarian is from a french fry. I apologize to European (and Canadian) friends that the US education system has created such uneducated poke weed.

R2; "Nazism is just one flavor of fascism"
"Stalinism is just one flavor of socialism."

My source was educated in Austria.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.