Accelerating climate change exerts strong pressure on Europe's mountain flora

Apr 19, 2012
Alpine flowers which only grow on a few mountain peaks are highly endangered through climate warming and increasing summer drought. For example, plants restricted to the high zone of Sierra Nevada, such as Linaria glacialis. Credit: Harald Pauli, GLORIA

A pan-European study published in Science shows that mountain plants across the continent are moving to higher altitudes. This often results in raised species numbers on mountain tops, when colonizers from lower down start to dwell on the summits. This study, however, also shows that upward shifts can lead to a reduction in species richness. The paper is based on detailed surveys of 66 mountain summits distributed between the north of Europe and the southern Mediterranean Sea. An international research group, led by the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the University of Vienna, mapped all plant species at each site in 2001 and 2008 using the same standardized procedures. The study was coordinated by Harald Pauli, Michael Gottfried, Stefan Dullinger and Georg Grabherr.

Increasing were only found on summits of northern and . By contrast, species numbers were stagnating or declining at nearly all sites in the Mediterranean region.

Anchusa caespitosa in Crete are expected to lose their habitats through accelerating climate change. Credit: Harald Pauli, GLORIA

Harald Pauli from the Global Observation Research Initiative in Alpine Environments (GLORIA) programme, which coordinated the study, said, "Our results showing a decline at the Mediterranean sites is worrying because these are the mountains with a very unique flora and a large proportion of their species occur only there and nowhere else on Earth".

On summits further north in Europe, more are prospering. This could be taken to indicate that these are much safer sites for alpine flowers. Michael Gottfried from GLORIA's coordination team said, "I'm afraid that this is not necessarily the case because the newly appearing plants are predominantly more widespread species from lower elevations and will pose increasing competition pressure on the rarer cold-loving alpine flowers".

The uppermost tips of Mediterranean mountains are rather small patches of cold habitats, spread like islands over a sea of much warmer lowlands. Lowland areas and the mountains are exposed to a characteristic dry season in summer. In the higher altitudes, precipitation mainly falls as snow during winter and spring and snowmelt is crucial for water supply of mountain plants during the arid growing season.

Harald Pauli added, "The observed species losses were most pronounced on the lower summits, where plants are expected to suffer earlier from water deficiency than on the snowier high peaks. Climate warming and decreasing precipitation in the Mediterranean during the past decades fit well to the pattern of shrinking species occurrences. Additionally, much of the is projected to become even dryer during the upcoming decades".

Georg Grabherr, chair of GLORIA, said, "Impacts of climate change, either through warming or combined with increased drought stress, are likely to threaten alpine plants not only on the continent, but even on the world-wide level. A number of mountain plants may resist or find colder substitute habitats somewhere in a rugged mountain terrain. Continued species monitoring will be vital for tracing ongoing ecological impacts on the diversity of alpine plant life".

Explore further: Reports identify areas where wildlife can survive in a changing climate

More information: Science, April 20, 2012. DOI: doi/10.1126/science.1219033

Related Stories

Desert Dust Alters Ecology of Colorado Alpine Meadows

Jun 29, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Accelerated snowmelt--precipitated by desert dust blowing into the mountains--changes how alpine plants respond to seasonal climate cues that regulate their life cycles, according to results ...

Short-lived seed of alpine plants

Sep 21, 2011

Scientists from the Millennium Seed Bank Partnership have found that the seeds of alpine plants are shorter lived than their lowland relatives. This will have implications for seed conservation strategies ...

Invasions by alien plants have been mapped in Europe

Jan 22, 2009

Biological invasions are one of the major threats to biodiversity and in many cases they have considerable impact on economy and human health. For their effective management it is important to understand which areas and ecosystems ...

Recommended for you

How can we avoid kelp beds turning into barren grounds?

55 minutes ago

Urchins are marine invertebrates that mould the biological richness of marine grounds. However, an excessive proliferation of urchins may also have severe ecological consequences on marine grounds as they ...

User comments : 93

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

A2G
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2012
Quote from article>

On summits further north in Europe, MORE plant species are prospering. This COULD BE TAKEN to indicate that these are much safer sites for alpine flowers.

MORE = we don't want to tell you the percentage because it is so small you would not take us seriously.

COULD BE TAKEN = we are just guessing
GSwift7
2 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2012
Oh boy.

66 sites (not much really), only TWO sample years. 2001 and 2008. Now, let me ask: does that have any relevance on climate change? That's only 7 years apart. Or, does that more probably just show the difference between those two years? I know that the number and type of weeds next to my front doorstep is different this year than it was last year. If I come back in 7 years and they are different again, can I, or should I, draw any conclusions from it? What if they are the same? Does that mean anything either?

What if the local climate at these 66 sites didn't do anything to the plants? What if it was the weather in those specific years? Since this year has been colder in Europe than 2008, if they went back now, would they see the opposite?

I hate it when I read wild conclusions drawn from insubstantial samples. This isn't even worthy of a high school science fair project. They get an F from me.
aroc91
4 / 5 (3) Apr 19, 2012
You're not reading into it far enough, GSwift. This isn't a limited research scope. This same thing has been done extensively on Mt. Rainier by one of my professors. He's tracked the altitude change of butterflies and the plants they interact with. This altitude change keeps them in a constant temperature range. The area around your doorstep is an abysmal sample size, so that's a hyperbole and you know it. These are large, homogenous ecosystems.

This is also supported by the research done tracking species in England. Populations have been moving north over the years as the temperature gradient has shifted north. That's a pretty clear connection to me.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 19, 2012
This same thing has been done extensively on Mt. Rainier by one of my professors.


Small towns in Washington are cooling.

http://data.giss....ghbors=1

http://data.giss....ghbors=1

http://data.giss....ghbors=1
aroc91
3 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
This same thing has been done extensively on Mt. Rainier by one of my professors.


Small towns in Washington are cooling.


It was 45 degrees today, but it was 70 a few weeks ago. Does that mean it's cooling here? Absolutely not. The general trend of those graphs is increasing.
Dug
3 / 5 (2) Apr 19, 2012
Anyone care to document warm water species expansion into the cooler oceans? Apparently not, because I'm not seeing those papers and oceans are a much more stable environment when compared to shifting weather patterns that have nothing to do with climate change per say. Not saying the above work isn't significant, but I would feel a lot more comfortable also having evidence of documented shifts of sessile species like corals in the oceans - before I concluded that a short term study as above - in a limited area of the world = significant climate change indications.
aroc91
1 / 5 (1) Apr 19, 2012
Anyone care to document warm water species expansion into the cooler oceans? Apparently not, because I'm not seeing those papers and oceans are a much more stable environment when compared to shifting weather patterns that have nothing to do with climate change per say. Not saying the above work isn't significant, but I would feel a lot more comfortable also having evidence of documented shifts of sessile species like corals in the oceans - before I concluded that a short term study as above - in a limited area of the world = significant climate change indications.


You're not looking hard enough.

http://www.scienc...abstract

Australian corals are prospering as water temperature has increased.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2012
Accelerating climate change? Really? Has this happened in the Alps?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 20, 2012
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 20, 2012
As Alps Warm, Ice Melts and Mountains Crumble

http://www.npr.or...13935545

Climate change and the impact on glaciers and permafrost in the alps.

http://www.jstor....64571123

"Accelerating climate change? Really? Has this happened in the Alps?" - GregorTard
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
No acceleration there. In fact your last link says the warming was greater in the 1940's and 1980's
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
To aroc91:

You're not reading into it far enough, GSwift. This isn't a limited research scope. This same thing has been done extensively on Mt. Rainier by one of my professors


Thank you for your comments. I have seen studies like the one you are talking about. There have been comprehensive studies over many years, some under controlled conditions and others in the wild. There are several large projects that have been going on for over 20 years now, with regular sampling. The one above isn't one of those. Do you think that doing a detailed survey for only two years is comparable to the comprehensive studies done by other groups over many years?

Another aspect that needs to be taken into account in this type of study is changes in range (or lack thereof). Also, the natural progression from grass to scrub to broad leaf to conifer will play a part in these changes. Natural ecosystems are not static. Competition and adaptation are powerful forces. Plants, insects, microbes..
GSwift7
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2012
Continued:

The above study is assuming an awefull lot. One question a person might want to look into is alternate reasons (besides temperature change) that might cause a vertical migration of some species. For example, is there a plant parasite that thrives at lower altitude, but not higher up? Has there been any forest fires? Did bird behavior change due to factors at other locations (long winter = late migration, therefore more beetle reproduction?) There are a TON of factors that you need to elimate as cause before you can make a cause and effect claim like the one above. I refuse to accept a two year sample as adequate. Anyone with even basic common sense should see this.

I would also ask: Were there any downward migrations in the study areas? If so, then how many up versus down? They made a statement about reducing diversity, but can their data support that? What about growth rates? Is there an overall reduction or increase in biomass?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 20, 2012
Here is yet another kick to the denialist's nuts.

http://www.youtub...IWD4tAHc

They must love the feeling.
aroc91
3.3 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
I can definitely understand skepticism, but to doubt that temperature is the cause when the same phenomena has been observed the world over seems a bit ridiculous to me.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 20, 2012
It was 45 degrees today, but it was 70 a few weeks ago. Does that mean it's cooling here? Absolutely not. The general trend of those graphs is increasing.


According to the NOAA, in the Pacific Northwest, 2011 was the 31st coldest year out of the last 117.

2010 was the 92nd coldest.

2009 was the 67th coldest.

2008 was the 47th coldest.

1934 is still the warmest.

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

1898 was warmer than 2011.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (16) Apr 20, 2012

1898 was warmer than 2011.


And 1896.

And 1897.

1934 was 4.1F warmer than 2011.
1934 was 2.6F warmer than 2010.
1934 was 3.3F warmer than 2009.

July of 2011 was the 19th coldest ever.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (15) Apr 20, 2012

July of 2011 was the 19th coldest ever.


June of 2011 the 17th coldest ever.

May of 2011 was the 8th coldest ever.

May of 2010 was the 6th coldest ever!!!!!!!!

Betcha the media didn't do a story on those temperatures.

Did you know that in the 2000s, the warmest May in the Northwest was still 18 spots out of the top and was 3F colder than 1958.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 20, 2012

April of 2008 was the 5th coldest!!!!!!!!!!!

11.5F COLDER than April 1934.


How do people and plants and animals adapt to a 11.5F drop in temperatures????

April 2011 was the 6th COLDEST ever!!!!

11.4F colder than 1934!
aroc91
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 20, 2012
You're cherry picking results. You're doing the exact same thing I did with the 70* and 45* example, which was just to prove the point that that sort of small sample cherry picking could be done. The trend line on EVERY SINGLE graph you've posted has a positive slope over the past 100 years. Troll.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2012
You're cherry picking results.


No. I was looking at the last fews years. Which were cold. Some months were spectacularly cold.

11.5F colder than the same month in 1934.

The last 4 years NONE of them made the warmest 25 years.

And 1934 is still the warmest.

Jan 2012 did not make the top 25.
Feb 2012 did not make the top 40.
Mar 2012 did not make the top 45.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2012
You're cherry picking results. You're doing the exact same thing I did with the 70* and 45* example


Show us the data. I gave you reference to mine.
aroc91
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2012
You're cherry picking results. You're doing the exact same thing I did with the 70* and 45* example


Show us the data. I gave you reference to mine.


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

Period: Annual

See that green line? I shouldn't have to explain to you what that is. 1 month being below the trend line for 3 years out of 1895-2012 is not statistically significant. The statistics are not deceptive. You are.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 21, 2012
If sustained, they generally die.

"How do people and plants and animals adapt to a 11.5F drop in temperatures????" - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 21, 2012
How ParkerTard/UbVonTard perpetually lie.

https://docs.goog...QUE/edit
aroc91
2.3 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
How ParkerTard/UbVonTard perpetually lie.

https://docs.goog...QUE/edit


Precisely
gregor1
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
So I'm thinking if climate change isn't "accelerating" then who ever wrote this is spreading disinformation right from the first word in the title. Why would they do that I wonder?
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2012
aroc91 Isn't it wonderful all the pretty pictures you can get when you adjust the data. Here's what happened in New Zealand
http://wattsupwit...stments/
The same thing has happened in Australia, Iceland and Greenland. It really is wonderfull don't you think?
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2012
Oh and while I'm at it, here's what one of those wonderful lead author "climate scientists had to say about telling the truth

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 21, 2012
So, I'm thinking that North America just experienced a winter without winter. A winter that ended with a week of mid summer temperatures a massive outbreak of summer like tornadoes and hail the buried some Oklahoma fields to a depth of over 3 feet. This was a winter that has never before been experienced in living or recorded memory.

So I'm thinking that this climate change thing is accelerating.

"So I'm thinking if climate change isn't "accelerating" then who ever wrote this is spreading disinformation right from the first word in the title." - Gregor1
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 21, 2012
Clearly Schneider was right when he wrote that back in the early 1980's. Although the quote itself is doctored to remove important context.

One wonders why Gregor needs to present only part of what Schneider said. Perhaps it is dishonesty on his part. Perhaps it is ignorance.

Let's find out, shall we?

"We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public's imagination...
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts...
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Prof. Stephen Schneider, (false quote)

Full quote below.
aroc91
4 / 5 (4) Apr 21, 2012
aroc91 Isn't it wonderful all the pretty pictures you can get when you adjust the data. Here's what happened in New Zealand
http://wattsupwit...stments/
The same thing has happened in Australia, Iceland and Greenland. It really is wonderfull don't you think?


Tragic, but it still doesn't change the trend.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 21, 2012
"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both."
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 21, 2012
NIWA vs the nutters

I am not surprised that this internationally peer reviewed 2010 report of the seven station temperature series has confirmed that NIWAs science was sound. It adds to the scientific knowledge that shows that New Zealands temperature has risen by about 0.9 degrees over the past 100 years.

http://thestandar...nutters/
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 21, 2012
Hartland institute denier commits perjury in NZ court.

More information related to local climate change denier attacks on NIWA scientists is starting to appear. The NZCSC (NZ Climate Science Coalition a local denier group) has listed sworn affidavits supporting their arguments to the NZ High Court requesting NIWA abandon New Zealands temperature record.

Denialist Carter claims I receive no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments. But recent exposure of internal memos from the US heartland Institute revealed that Carter is and will receive payments from them for his climate change denial work.

http://sciblogs.c...himself/
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2012
Top CLimate Scientists Carter claims I receive no research funding from special interest organisations such as environmental groups, energy companies or government departments.


Heartland Institute is a think tank.

And Greenpeace OWNS OUTRIGHT every chicken little propagandist.

And AGW cultists outspends Heartland 10 million to 1.

The thing about climate fascist chicken littles is they HATE anyone who has the temerity to contradict their propaganada.

They froth. The smear. They call everyone names like Tard.

The want zero spending allowed on skepticism.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2012
The statistics are not deceptive. You are.


I usually pick Rank and Table.

The top 5 warmest years:

1934 50.2
2003 49.2
1992 49.2
1958 48.8
1926 48.7

Out of 117:

2011 was the 31st warmest year. 86 years were warmer.
2010 was 92nd warmest. 25 years were warmer.
2009 was 67th warmest. 50 years were warmer.
2008 was 47th warmest. 70 years were warmer.

Amazing how cold the last 4 years are.

The graph is misleading.

But 2011 was 5.1F COLDER than 1934.

aroc91
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
I usually pick Rank and Table.

The top 5 warmest years:

1934 50.2
2003 49.2
1992 49.2
1958 48.8
1926 48.7

Out of 117:

2011 was the 31st warmest year. 86 years were warmer.
2010 was 92nd warmest. 25 years were warmer.
2009 was 67th warmest. 50 years were warmer.
2008 was 47th warmest. 70 years were warmer.

Amazing how cold the last 4 years are.

The graph is misleading.

But 2011 was 5.1F COLDER than 1934.



Once again, that is precisely what I did with my 45* and 70* example. Those don't change the general trend. Do I really have to bust out my experimental design book and run a regression for you?
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 21, 2012
Those don't change the general trend


That it got warm before, cooled off and has yet to surpass 1934?

And that spring is disastrously cold and if you made decisions based on general trend rather than recent trends your crops would fail and you might freeze?

Cycles change. El Nino/La Nina and PDO all have way more temperature fluctuations than changes of less than 1C.

But you try and pretend drops of 11.5F are irrelevant?

UHI explains all microscopic changes in average temperature.

But CO2 cannot explain why some months in the last 4 years are 11F colder than 1934.

CO2 is one amazingly impotent GHG.

aroc91
3 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2012
Variance exists. This is stats 101. An 11.5F drop in only 1 month over a period of 3 years in a sample of over 100 years while the surrounding months continued to get warmer is not significant at all. It's natural variance, noise. It's not indicative of any larger trend.

That it got warm before, cooled off and has yet to surpass 1934?


I can do the exact same thing but go in the opposite direction and say that it was cold in 1950, warmed up and has yet to be that cold since.

Nobody said anything about CO2 either. I think the temperature correlation with CO2 increase is coincidental, so I don't disagree with you on that. It more closely correlates with solar activity.
NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Apr 21, 2012
Variance exists.


Right. So .8C over 150 years is well within normal variance. Many of us say the same thing.

Especially when it is still colder than 1934.
gregor1
1 / 5 (3) Apr 21, 2012
In no dataset is the trend accelerating. This piece is deliberately deceptive
aroc91
3 / 5 (2) Apr 22, 2012
Variance exists.


Right. So .8C over 150 years is well within normal variance. Many of us say the same thing.

Especially when it is still colder than 1934.


It's still warmer than 1950. See what I did there? You can't take 2 points, ignore everything else, and say those 2 points make a representative trend.

That's a HUGE statistical fallacy.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (38) Apr 22, 2012
"Heartland Institute is a think tank." - ParkerTard

That is in the business of lying to the American people to increase the profits of it's corporate clients.

You know, clients like the tobacco industry who pay for the Heritage Foundation campaign to inform them that smoking isn't particularly dangerous and is a lifestyle choice that children should carefully consider.

Heritage is one of the most corrupt propaganda groups in America.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (39) Apr 22, 2012
Really?

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

"In no dataset is the trend accelerating." - GregorTard

You do know what acceleration is, don't you GregorTard?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (38) Apr 22, 2012
The scientific community has spend considerable time studying attribution, detection confidence limits and climate noise, and long ago settled on a value of around 0.5'C for the climate noise floor over the last few hundred years.

Not 0.8, as you dishonestly claim below.

"So .8C over 150 years is well within normal variance. Many of us say the same thing." - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. Caught telling yet another lie.

http://www.ipcc.c...2-1.html
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (38) Apr 22, 2012
Why do you continue to lie Parker Tard? You know you will just be exposed as the chronic liar you are.

The GISS data set allows us to easily check your claim.

http://data.giss....B.Ts.txt

1934 Jan-Dec annual mean anomaly = 0'C
2010 Jan-Dec annual mean anomaly = 0.86'C
2011 Jan-Dec annual mean anomaly = 0.72'C

The last time the global temperature anomaly was below 0'C was 1976.

"That it got warm before, cooled off and has yet to surpass 1934?" - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard, caught telling yet another lie.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 22, 2012
More lies from ParkerTard...

NASA data allows us to easily check his claim.

http://data.giss....B.Ts.txt

We find for J-D the highest temperatures have been...

2010 0.86'C, 58.8'F
2007 0.78'C, 58.6'F
2009 0.73'C, 58.5'F
2001 0.72'C, 58.5'F
2002 0.71'C, 58.5'F
2003 0.71'C, 58.5'F

"The top 5 warmest years:

1934 50.2
2003 49.2
1992 49.2
1958 48.8
1926 48.7" - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. Caught telling yet another lie.

You have to wonder why he persists, knowing he will be caught.

Mental illness is the only answer.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 22, 2012
1. Unlike corporate propaganda groups like the filth that is the Heritage Foundation Greenpeace has never claimed that smoking is good for a person's health.

2. With few exceptions, Greenpeace has promoted sound science for the benefit of mankind, while filthy conservative propaganda companies like Heritage, Cato, AEI, CEI, etc, exist only to further the profits of their corporate sponsors at the expense of the environment and people.


"And Greenpeace OWNS OUTRIGHT every chicken little propagandist." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (38) Apr 22, 2012
That turns out to be the primary gas driving climate change over the earth's history.

"CO2 is one amazingly impotent GHG." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is living in a land of self delusion. A sure sign of mental illness.

http://vimeo.com/34099316

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 22, 2012
ParkerTard is proof that hate is a mind killer.

I prefer being motivated by logic, honesty and reason.

"The thing about climate fascist chicken littles is they HATE anyone who has the temerity to contradict their propaganada." - ParkerTard
aroc91
4.2 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
NotParker,

Address, at the very least, this point of mine specifically-

I can do the exact same thing but go in the opposite direction and say that it was cold in 1950, warmed up and has yet to be that cold since.


This is the EXACT flawed logic you used with 1934. Why is it that you think you're the one who's correct? Both are technically true, but neither reflect the time period as a whole.
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2012
NotParker,

Address, at the very least, this point of mine specifically-

I can do the exact same thing but go in the opposite direction and say that it was cold in 1950, warmed up and has yet to be that cold since.


Was it cold in 1950? It was .4F colder than 2011 in the Northwest.

That hardly compares to 1934 being 4.1F warmer than 2011.

1951 was colder than 1950. As was 1955, 1964, 1993, 1982, 1975, 1984 and 1985.

So ... you could say what you did. But you were wrong. As usual.

NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
The thing about climate fascist chicken littles is they HATE anyone who has the temerity to contradict their propaganada."


As proven by VD's Tard ranting.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
That turns out to be the primary gas driving climate change over the earth's history.


CO2 always follows temperature.

H2O is the #1 GHG. Jungles stay warm at night because of the humidity.

Deserts cool off by as much as 30C or more. CO2 doesn't stop (or even slow) cooling in the absence of moisture.
aroc91
4 / 5 (4) Apr 22, 2012
Was it cold in 1950? It was .4F colder than 2011 in the Northwest.

That hardly compares to 1934 being 4.1F warmer than 2011.

1951 was colder than 1950. As was 1955, 1964, 1993, 1982, 1975, 1984 and 1985.

So ... you could say what you did. But you were wrong. As usual.



I meant 1955. Not sure why I said 1950. Anyway, that correction nullifies your entire post.

No matter how much you want it to be, the outlier of 1934 has no statistical bearing on the OVERALL trend. Deal with it. I take it you've never had a statistics class?
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
Sure, Change the year after you are humiliated.

This decade is a lot colder than the last. Thats the most important trend.

In fact, the last 5 years are 1.1F colder than the previous 5 years.

NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012

In fact, the last 5 years are 1.1F colder than the previous 5 years.



1904 to 1908 was warmer than 2007 to 2011.
1900 to 1904 was was a warmer 5 years too.

In fact there are dozens of 5 year periods warmer than 2007 to 2011.

The trend from 2002 to 2011 is down -2.01 degF / Decade

aroc91
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
You can't make predictive trends based on a small sample. It's absolutely foolish. If you looked at only 1953-1955, you'd think the temperature was taking a huge dive, but lo and behold, it went right back up in 1956. It's stupid to do the same for any other year and we're only 2 years into this decade.
aroc91
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
And once again- I take it you've never had a statistics class?

Looking at even a 5 year span is analogous to going to the ocean, scooping up a glass of water, and coming to the conclusion that whales don't exist.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (39) Apr 23, 2012
Once again ParkerTard tells a whopper of a lie.

"1904 to 1908 was warmer than 2007 to 2011." - ParkerTard

From NASA GissTemp GLB.Ts plus dSST.txt
Global Average Temperatures J-D

1904 13.66 'C
1905 13.76 'C
1906 13.82 'C
1907 13.61 'C
1908 13.68 'C

2007 14.58 'C
2008 14.44 'C
2009 14.57 'C
2010 14.63 'C
2011 14.51 'C

Conservativ ParkerTard has publicly claimed that he intends to continue to
lie about the reality of global warming as long as he lives.

Mental illness is clearly indicated.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (39) Apr 23, 2012
And another lie from Conservative ParkerTard.

"The trend from 2002 to 2011 is down -2.01 degF / Decade" - ParkerTard

http://www.woodfo...11/trend

The trend is 0'F per decade over that period as the above plot shows.

Statistical confidence over such a short period however is zero with the trend potentially being 1.0 'C per decade or -0.9'C per decade with a 2 sigma confidence.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 23, 2012
ParkerTard tells yet another whopper of a lie. Again easily shown.

Average temperatures over the last two decades can be read from the midpoint of the following plots.

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

"This decade is a lot colder than the last." - ParkerTard/UbVonTard

The values are roughly 0.45'C for 2000 - 2010 and roughly 0.275 for the period 1900 to 2000.

ParkerTard - UbVonTard claim that the period from 1900 was warmer.

ParkerTard has publicly stated that he intends to keep lying about Global Warming for the rest of his life.

This is a sign of deep mental illness. But typical Conservative dishonesty.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 23, 2012
"CO2 always follows temperature." - ParkerTard

Yet another lie from ParkerTard.

Facts can be found here.

http://www.youtub...eqgG3Tl8

Plunge in CO2 put the freeze on Antarctica
http://phys.org/n...ica.html

CO2 leads Temperature during Pleistocene deglaciation

J. D. Shakun et al., 2012. Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation, Nature, 484: p. 49-54.

4 lies in a row for ParkerTard/UbVonTard. Sadly this is no where close to his record of deceitful postings.

NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
VD, this is not the 2000 to 2009 decade. It is the 2010s.

Idiot.

The coldest 5 years in the US since 1998 were:

2011,2010,2009,2008 and 2004.

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

1934, 1931, 1939 and 1938 were warmer than 2011,2010,2009, 2008.

1933 was warmer than 2010,2009 and 2008.

NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012

"1904 to 1908 was warmer than 2007 to 2011."


In the Pacific Northwest. As per the discussion.

VD, you should read the posts.
aroc91
3.8 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
VD, this is not the 2000 to 2009 decade. It is the 2010s.

Idiot.

The coldest 5 years in the US since 1998 were:

2011,2010,2009,2008 and 2004.

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

1934, 1931, 1939 and 1938 were warmer than 2011,2010,2009, 2008.

1933 was warmer than 2010,2009 and 2008.



Stop ignoring the trend line. 5 outliers out of over 100 is meaningless. They don't change the long term trend at all. Once again- I assume you've never taken a statistics class?
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2012
To Vendicar:

You do know what acceleration is, don't you GregorTard?


That's from the post where you linked to a graph on Woodfortrees. I re-formatted that same graph with smaller increments of time. I picked your starting date and then used 30 year increments, because that's universally agreed to be the minimum resolution for climate data. Using even shorter time periods further illustrates the deceleration in recent years.

However, I think GIStemp is probably my least favorite temp record. They have multiple issues with grid filling. It's a combined land/ocean record, and for example, when they have arctic grids that are ice covered, they 'smear' the nearby land data out over the ice. That type of in-filling of grids is okay as long as you know about it before you try to interpret anything from the dataset. You must know how the data was compiled in order to use it. That's a danger of using woodfortrees, since most people won't go read the data distribution notes first
GSwift7
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2012
Oh, here's the link I forgot, lol. It's the same woodfortrees graph you used, only with shorter time intervals. Your intervals really were too long, since it missed the major changes in trend that we've seen over the past century. Personally, I think ENSO, AMO and PDO are such big noise generators in the temp record that it's difficult to pull any trend out of our instrument records. Not impossible, but difficult. You shouldn't simply look at raw data though.

http://www.woodfo...30/trend
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
5 outliers out of over 100 is meaningless.


But it isn't over 100. The last 4 out of 4 in the US didn't make the top 20 warmest years.

4 years in the 1930s were warmer than the last 4.

It is colder than it was 80 years ago.

NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the first three months of the year (JanuaryMarch) period was 0.70F (0.39C) above the 20th century average of 54.1F (12.3C), tying with 1991 as the 21st warmest such period on record and the coolest since 1996. "

Tying with 1991 ... which is 21 years ago.

http://www.ncdc.n...l/2012/3

So globally it is as cold as 1991 ....

"The Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent during March 2012 was near the long-term average for March, "

"Antarctic sea ice during March was 16.0 percent above average ... "

Arctic Sea Ice "... one of the largest March extents of the past decade."

"land surface temperature ... the 27th warmest "

27th ??????????????????

OMG!!! We are gonna freeze to death!

aroc91
4 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
5 outliers out of over 100 is meaningless.


But it isn't over 100. The last 4 out of 4 in the US didn't make the top 20 warmest years.


"First year to display: 1895
Last year to display: 2012"

4 years in the 1930s were warmer than the last 4.

It is colder than it was 80 years ago.


Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to say this? Outliers exist. Just because variance exists and it's colder now than then doesn't mean the general trend hasn't been increasing. You would have been foaming at the mouth claiming we were going into an ice age if this conversation were taking place in 1955.

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 23, 2012

Jesus Christ, how many times do I have to say this? Outliers exist. Just because variance exists and it's colder now than then doesn't mean the general trend hasn't been increasing. You would have been foaming at the mouth claiming we were going into an ice age if this conversation were taking place in 1955.



It is cold now. And getting colder.

Ignoring cooling trends now is like someone claiming in October that the trend from January to September is still positive and the cooling in August/September should be ignored.

"The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the first three months of the year (JanuaryMarch) period was 0.70°F (0.39°C) above the 20th century average of 54.1°F (12.3°C), tying with 1991 as the 21st warmest such period on record"

Still cooling. As cold as 1991.

aroc91
3 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2012
Ignoring cooling trends now is like someone claiming in October that the trend from January to September is still positive and the cooling in August/September should be ignored.


The difference being that we know annual trends. It gets colder in the winter and warmer in the summer. Decades/centuries don't show a reliable pattern like that. We can't predict trends like that on that timescale. There are no reliable predictive trends besides the slight upward slope. You CANNOT expect the temperature to keep dropping. To do so would be foolish, just as it would have been in 1916, 1955, and 1985.

I ran the least squares regression, by the way. R^2= 0.06
6% of the temperature variance can be predicted by the change in year. It's not much, but anything more than 0 is statistically significant. The data reliably shows that temperature has been increasing between 1895 and 2011.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
Accelerating climate change...
What a bunch of hooey. There's been no net global warming for at least 10 years:

http://woodfortre...12/trend

How is that "accelerating?"
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
"James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his Gaia theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being alarmist about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too."

"The problem is we dont know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books mine included because it looked clear-cut, but it hasnt happened, Lovelock said.

Theres nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now, he said.

The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising -- carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that, he added."

http://worldnews....nge?lite

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 23, 2012
cont...

"'All right, I made a mistake.' He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding."

"Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.

And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models."

http://worldnews....nge?lite

So put that in your pipe VDtard, and enjoy.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
You CANNOT expect the temperature to keep dropping.


You CANNOT expect the temperature to keep rising.

What you could do is have an open mind and pay attention to the actual trend, not the one from 15 years ago.

This did not happen: http://oi42.tinyp...9o50.jpg
aroc91
3.8 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
You CANNOT expect the temperature to keep dropping.


You CANNOT expect the temperature to keep rising.

What you could do is have an open mind and pay attention to the actual trend, not the one from 15 years ago.

This did not happen: http://oi42.tinyp...9o50.jpg


This didn't happen either: http://i43.tinypi...3gi0.jpg
NotParker
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2012

This did not happen: http://oi42.tinyp...9o50.jpg


Well, it did more than we can prove.

UHI caused what appears to be warming. But it didn't really happen.

And even with UHI improperly dealt with, the 1930s is still the hottest period in US history.

Aside from that, many people make decisions based on outrageous claims of doom and gloom.

AGW cult members seem to be proud of their inability to predict the future, but they keep telling us to squander trillions.

AGW = Fail
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 23, 2012

This did not happen: http://oi42.tinyp...9o50.jpg


Those cooling periods were not predicted to occur either by the CO2 cult.

Which AGW cult leader predicted 13 years of cooling and it would be as cold as 1991 in 2012?

Who predicted Jan 2012 and Jan 2011 would be as cold at Jan 1942 and Jan 1944?

AGW has failed. Find another theory.
aroc91
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2012
Whoa now, don't lump me in with anyone. I'm on nobody's side. I'm merely looking at the data. I'm not drawing any conclusions and I'm not putting the blame on anybody. If you read my posts thoroughly, you'd know I said on page 2:

Nobody said anything about CO2 either. I think the temperature correlation with CO2 increase is coincidental, so I don't disagree with you on that. It more closely correlates with solar activity.


To ignore the sun in all this is irresponsible. We can track solar activity very closely. I'm reserving judgement about AGW. Sure, temperature has *correlated* with CO2 output, but there have been quicker and bigger increases throughout history that humans have had nothing to do with. I don't think there's any reason at the moment to say we're responsible. All I'm saying is that temperature has increased through the last century. That's it.
Estevan57
2 / 5 (24) Apr 24, 2012
aroc91, please don't feed the troll. Notparker will NEVER admit any of his "data" are incorrect, cherry-picked, madeup etc. He will just switch to some other facet of his same worn out unsupported argument. The rational has no appeal for him. This comments section is his girlfriend if ya know what I mean.
aroc91
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2012
aroc91, please don't feed the troll. Notparker will NEVER admit any of his "data" are incorrect, cherry-picked, madeup etc. He will just switch to some other facet of his same worn out unsupported argument. The rational has no appeal for him. This comments section is his girlfriend if ya know what I mean.


Yeah, once he kept arguing even after I ran the regression, I was getting that feeling too. The stats don't lie.
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 24, 2012
His arguments seem very well supported to me. His data is legit. He uses the very same type of arguments the alarmists use and rarely uses name calling, ad hominem attacks, and appeals to authority that in my humble opinion, should be moderated against. Your accusation of "Troll" really doesn't fly. He also posts great links to back everything up and uses cherry picking to expose the shocking cherry picking of the hysterics
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 24, 2012
Speaking of spurious claims lets get back to acceleration
http://www.climat...rts.html
aroc91
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 24, 2012
His arguments seem very well supported to me. His data is legit. He uses the very same type of arguments the alarmists use and rarely uses name calling, ad hominem attacks, and appeals to authority that in my humble opinion, should be moderated against. Your accusation of "Troll" really doesn't fly. He also posts great links to back everything up


Just because his data is correct doesn't mean he's drawing legitimate conclusions. Minority outliers do not rule such a large sample.

and uses cherry picking to expose the shocking cherry picking of the hysterics


You can't say that his arguments are well supported and then turn around and say that he's being fallacious on purpose to make a point about cherry picking data. Using legitimate data and having a well supported argument are not mutually exclusive.
taniana
1 / 5 (3) Apr 25, 2012
as Eddie implied I'm blown away that a person able to profit $7977 in four weeks on the internet. did you look at this site NuttyRich.com
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 25, 2012
The stats don't lie.


Statistics are used to draw the wrong conclusions all the time.

Where is the predictability of climate science?

Which AGW scientists predicted a return to temperatures from 1991?

Look at all the blue. Which newspapers and TV stations went on and on about Alaska being -5C BELOW the 1971-2000 average?

"http://www.ncdc.n...203.gif"
aroc91
3 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
Statistics are used to draw the wrong conclusions all the time.


Case in point, you, thinking that 10 years against a 100 year trend is significant when we've BOTH shown that you can't use even a 20 year trend to extrapolate.

Where is the predictability of climate science?


Says the guy that thinks 10 years of cooling overrides a 100 year trend.

Which AGW scientists predicted a return to temperatures from 1991?

Look at all the blue. Which newspapers and TV stations went on and on about Alaska being -5C BELOW the 1971-2000 average?

"http://www.ncdc.n...203.gif"


I don't know and I don't care. I'm not siding with anybody and I'm not concerned with the politics. I'm just analyzing the data we already have.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 26, 2012
Yes, it is well illustrated by your use of fraudulent statistics to draw the wrong conclusions time after time after time.

"Statistics are used to draw the wrong conclusions all the time." - ParkerTard

It is an aspect of your mental disorder.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 26, 2012
Looking at the blue I note that it is much less than the red.

"Look at all the blue" - Parker Tard

Researcher: March Warmest Month On Record, Signals Global Warming

Federal officials say March 2012 was unique because 15,292 temperature records fell across the U.S. The average national temperature for the month was 6 degrees above the long term average and the first three months of the year were the warmest ever recorded in the lower 48 states.

http://www.kpbs.o...rch-not/

The warmest March in history: By the numbers

http://theweek.co...-numbers

Of course they are referring to American History.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 26, 2012
Poor Gregor. He thinks he can spot acceleration in climate change over just 15 years, when as we all know, 15 years isn't even enough time to classify as weather change as climate.

"Speaking of spurious claims lets get back to acceleration" - GregorTard

Lets look at the longer term...

http://www.woodfo...80/trend

The slope of the blue line (present) is greater than the slope of the green line (past).

Hence acceleration.

It really isn't rocket science. But then breathing is rocket science to some.

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.