Climate change helps then quickly stunts growth, decade-long study shows

Apr 10, 2012
Grassland ecosystems found in northern Arizona were used in a decade-long study conducted at Northern Arizona University that simulated the long-term effects of global warming. Credit: Michael Allwright and Paul Dijkstra.

(Phys.org) -- Global warming may initially make the grass greener, but not for long, according to new research conducted at Northern Arizona University.

The study, published this week in Nature , shows that plants may thrive in the early stages of a warming environment but begin to deteriorate quickly.

“We were really surprised by the pattern, where the initial boost in growth just went away,” said Zhuoting Wu, NAU doctoral graduate in biology. “As the ecosystems adjust, the responses changed.” 

Researchers subjected four grassland ecosystems to simulated climate change during the decade-long study. Plants grew more the first year in the treatment, but this effect progressively diminished over the next nine years, and finally disappeared.

The research reports the long-term effects of global warming on plant growth, the plant species that make up the community, and the changes in how plants use or retain essential resources like . The team transplanted four grassland ecosystems from higher to lower elevation to simulate a future warmer environment, and coupled the warming with the range of predicted changes in precipitation—more, the same, or less. The grasslands studied were typical of those found in northern Arizona along elevation gradients from the San Francisco Peaks down to the Great Basin Desert.

The researchers found that long-term warming resulted in loss of native species and encroachment of species typical of warmer environments, pushing the plant community toward less productive species. The warmed grasslands also cycled nitrogen more rapidly, an effect that should make more nitrogen available to plants, helping them grow more. But instead much of the nitrogen was converted to nitrogen gases lost to the atmosphere or leached out with rainfall washing through the soil.

Bruce Hungate, senior author of the study and NAU biological sciences professor, said the research findings challenge the expectation that warming will increase nitrogen availability and cause a sustained increase in plant productivity.

“Faster nitrogen turnover stimulated nitrogen losses, likely reducing the effect of warming on plant growth,” Hungate said. “More generally, changes in species, changes in element cycles—these really make a difference. It’s classic systems ecology: the initial responses elicit knock-on effects which here came back to bite the plants. These ecosystem feedbacks are critical. You just can’t figure this out with grown in a greenhouse. ”

The findings caution against extrapolating from short-term experiments, or experiments in a greenhouse, where experimenters cannot measure the feedbacks from changes in the plant community and from nutrient cycles. The research will continue at least five more years with current funding from the National Science Foundation and, Hungate said, hopefully for another five years after that.

“The long-term perspective is key. We were surprised, and I’m guessing there are more surprises in store.”

Additional coauthors include George Koch, NAU professor of biological sciences, and Paul Dijkstra, assistant research professor of . Wu completed the study as part of her doctoral thesis in biology and earned her degree in 2011.

Explore further: First large-scale carbon capture goes online in Canada

Provided by Northern Arizona University

3.9 /5 (18 votes)

Related Stories

Antarctic flowering plants warm to climate change

Mar 30, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The first issue of a new journal in the prestigious Nature series, Nature Climate Change (issue 1; April 2011) highlights how one plant species in the Antarctic appears to be taking advant ...

Recommended for you

Report IDs 'major weaknesses' at nuclear-arms lab

4 hours ago

One of the nation's premier nuclear weapons laboratories is being called out by the inspector general of the U.S. Department of Energy for "major weaknesses" in the way it packaged contaminated waste before shipping it to ...

User comments : 163

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

rubberman
3.4 / 5 (10) Apr 10, 2012
So although "plants love CO2"....as some narrow minded posters like to say repeatedly, there are ALOT of other factors to be considered, as with everything.
jet
4 / 5 (4) Apr 10, 2012
I was under the impression that the min for climate was 30 years.. guess it only applies some of the time.
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (5) Apr 10, 2012
Hopefully they get to run the experiment for 30 years...
StillWind
2 / 5 (16) Apr 10, 2012
Yeah...like 10 years in an isolated ecosystem is any proof of anything to do with the planet as a whole. What this is proof of, is data churning to get money.
StillWind
1.8 / 5 (16) Apr 10, 2012
So although "plants love CO2"....as some narrow minded posters like to say repeatedly, there are ALOT of other factors to be considered, as with everything.


Yeah, attacking those who actually understand the paradigm is a good plan. Nothing like a good strawman to really make your case.
Lurker2358
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 10, 2012
I was under the impression that the min for climate was 30 years.. guess it only applies some of the time.


You're aware a 30 year running average can be updated every year, right?
NotParker
2.1 / 5 (11) Apr 10, 2012
So ... they transplanted plants from higher altitude to lower altitude during a record drought?

"To ensure the pattern was not entirely driven by low ANPP during the record drought year of 2002"

http://www.nature...6-s1.pdf
Russkiycremepuff
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 10, 2012
"The team transplanted four grassland ecosystems from higher to lower elevation to simulate a future warmer environment, and coupled the warming with the range of predicted changes in precipitationmore, the same, or less. The grasslands studied were typical of those found in northern Arizona along elevation gradients from the San Francisco Peaks down to the Great Basin Desert."

This is all artificial hokum. While the process itself is fine as a study, the evaluation is poorly defined due to the unnatural setting such as lack of large animal fecal introduction from elk, big horn sheep, etc. and rodents. I also did not read anything in the article about insect life and fungus spores which occur naturally. But the main thing is the fact that the grass taken from higher elevation has evolved to survive IN that higher elevation and nowhere else. That would be like taking lichens from the Himalayas and expecting them to thrive in the middle of Africa in a hot jungle.
Russkiycremepuff
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 10, 2012
If the grasses cannot adjust and adapt to the warm, then they will just have to die. That is nature's way of balance, also known as "the survival of the fittest". Man has not yet learned that Nature is harsh but allows life to evolve according to the conditions it finds itself in. Man cannot breathe water like fish and remove oxygen from that water because Man did not evolve fish lungs. It's the same with all of life.
For scientists to be so deeply concerned that grasses that are used to thriving in cooler climates cannot thrive for long in the warm, is like a dog chasing its tail round and round. Their deep concern makes no sense and they worry for naught. The grasses in the Great Basin Desert will thrive since they have evolved for those conditions. Nothing less and nothing more. These type of studies are amusing.
zz5555
2.3 / 5 (6) Apr 10, 2012
I was under the impression that the min for climate was 30 years.. guess it only applies some of the time.


It only applies when the data says it applies. The 30 year period is to allow the signal to be separated from the noise. That's often (but not always) necessary for separating weather from climate. And if you're able to filter out the noise, much less data (and time) is required. An experiment could certainly be set up where 10 years was enough to produce data of interest.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 11, 2012
It only applies when the data says it applies. The 30 year period is to allow the signal to be separated from the noise. That's often (but not always) necessary for separating weather from climate. And if you're able to filter out the noise, much less data (and time) is required. An experiment could certainly be set up where 10 years was enough to produce data of interest.
Right, like how in the last 10 years CO2 has steadily risen, but global temperature has been steadily declining:

http://www.woodfo...set:-344

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 11, 2012
Global warming may initially make the grass greener, but not for long, according to new research


Well I don't know about the grass, but the biosphere is booming.

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

Anecdotally, I can't keep up with trimming the trees on my property anymore. They're growing like weeds! And my weeds are growing so fast they're becoming trees!

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2012
Our results indicate that global changes in climate have eased several critical climatic constraints to plant growth, such that net primary production increased 6% (3.4 petagrams of carbon over 18 years) globally. The largest increase was in tropical ecosystems. Amazon rain forests accounted for 42% of the global increase in net primary production, owing mainly to decreased cloud cover and the resulting increase in solar radiation.

http://www.scienc...abstract

"Well I don't know about the grass, but the biosphere is booming." - UbVonTard

How sad for you that GNPP has been declining over the last decade.

http://www.co2sci...010b.gif

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2012
Today...

Terrestrial net primary production (NPP) quantifies the amount of atmospheric carbon fixed by plants and accumulated as biomass. Previous studies have shown that climate constraints were relaxing with increasing temperature and solar radiation, allowing an upward trend in NPP from 1982 through 1999. The past decade (2000 to 2009) has been the warmest since instrumental measurements began, which could imply continued increases in NPP; however, our estimates suggest a reduction in the global NPP of 0.55 petagrams of carbon. Large-scale droughts have reduced regional NPP, and a drying trend in the Southern Hemisphere has decreased NPP in that area, counteracting the increased NPP over the Northern Hemisphere. A continued decline in NPP would not only weaken the terrestrial carbon sink, but it would also intensify future competition between food demand and proposed biofuel production.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (2) Apr 11, 2012
Drought-Induced Reduction in Global Terrestrial Net Primary Production from 2000 Through 2009

http://www.scienc...abstract
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2012
Which as we continue to point out is a lie being told by UbVonTard.

Not only are temperatures rising but they are tracking CO2 almost perfectly as the following plot shows.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

"Right, like how in the last 10 years CO2 has steadily risen, but global temperature has been steadily declining:" - UbVonTard
rogerfgay
5 / 5 (1) Apr 11, 2012
What a wonderful time we live in! It's amazing that our entire planet has maintained a constant uniform temperature (along with other variables) throughout its entire studiable history; so that young scientists now, for the first time ever in human history, can surprise us with how changing temperature effects plant growth. This is a monumental study covering a phenomenon that we've never seen before - differences in temperature.
rubberman
2 / 5 (4) Apr 11, 2012

Anecdotally, I can't keep up with trimming the trees on my property anymore. They're growing like weeds! And my weeds are growing so fast they're becoming trees!



So what you are saying is that the unwanted growth is choking out the more desirable vegetation....

From the article above:

"The researchers found that long-term warming resulted in loss of native species and encroachment of species typical of warmer environments, pushing the plant community toward less productive species."

You certainly are a special type of idiot....
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2012
Today...
Or not:

http://www.worldc...ause-it/

Seriously, corn won't grow on ice.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2012
Which as we continue to point out is a lie being told by UbVonTard.

Not only are temperatures rising but they are tracking CO2 almost perfectly as the following plot shows.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

"Right, like how in the last 10 years CO2 has steadily risen, but global temperature has been steadily declining:" - Uba
What in the phrase, "in the last 10 years " do you not understand?

Since when did 10 years become 15?

Even so, using similar sine wave scales in your graph gives us:

http://www.woodfo...set:-350

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 11, 2012

Not only are temperatures rising but they are tracking CO2 almost perfectly as the following plot shows.


Temperatures are falling and not tracking CO2.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2012
Not only are temperatures rising but they are tracking CO2 almost perfectly as the following plot shows.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2012
There is no statistical significance in 10 data points that doesn't even span one solar cycle.

So why do you continually repeat your lie?

Are you mentally ill?

"What in the phrase, "in the last 10 years " do you not understand?" - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Apr 11, 2012
There is no such thing as a "sine wave scale".

Why are you dishonestly fabricating such a claim?

"Even so, using similar sine wave scales in your graph" - UbVonTard

In order for you to honestly overlay temperature and Co2 data onto the same horizontal scale, they have to be in the same units.

So what is your conversion factor between ppmv and 'C.

You must have one to honestly make the claim you have made.

You are mentally ill aren't you?

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 11, 2012
You do realize don't you that the last period of glaciation scraped off virtually all of the topsoil from Canada and dumped it into the ocean or onto the continental U.S.

Do you expect, in your vast ignorance, to grow corn on bare rock?

"Seriously, corn won't grow on ice." - UbVonTard

Moron.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2012
Not only are temperatures rising but they are tracking CO2 almost perfectly as the following plot shows.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289
You're overwhelming the signal with noise, to exagerate the trend.

Here's the past 10 years:

http://www.woodfo...set:-360
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 11, 2012
There is no statistical significance in 10 data points that doesn't even span one solar cycle.
You obviously don't even know what a data point is. There are 120 data points in the 10 year graph, each representing thousands of measurements. Not that you'd understand it, but here's the raw data, point by point:

http://www.woodfo...set:-360

So why do you continually repeat your lie?
Obviously (to anyone with intelligence and character) you're the liar here. So, why are you continually lying?

Are you mentally ill?
Likewise (with your eco-terrorist leanings and name calling) you're the mentally ill one here. Please, get help.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 11, 2012
There is no such thing as a "sine wave scale".
When comparing disparate graphs, the data needs to chart comparably. Overwhelming one signal with the noise of another provides false results.

Why are you dishonestly fabricating such a claim?
You really don't know anything about graphs, do you?

In order for you to honestly overlay temperature and Co2 data onto the same horizontal scale, they have to be in the same units.
They aren't in the same units.

So what is your conversion factor between ppmv and 'C.
You want the data to appear as it does in its natural units, when graphed separately.

This:

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

plus this:

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

equals this:

http://www.woodfo...set:-360
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 11, 2012
You do realize don't you that the last period of glaciation scraped off virtually all of the topsoil from Canada and dumped it into the ocean or onto the continental U.S.

Do you expect, in your vast ignorance, to grow corn on bare rock?
Idiot. What bare rock are you talking about? The permafrost is frozen topsoil.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 12, 2012
Here's the past 15 years of warming and CO2 levels.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

Note how CO2 levels track the warming almost perfectly.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 12, 2012
"In order for you to honestly overlay temperature and Co2 data onto the same horizontal scale, they have to be in the same units." - VD

"They aren't in the same units." - UbVonTard

Then your comparison is entirely invalid in addition to being statistical fraud.

"You want the data to appear as it does in its natural units, when graphed separately." - UbVonTard

There is no such thing as "natural units".

You are just spouting Childish, Anti-scientific, Nonsense.

Meanwhile...

http://www.woodfo...set:-289
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 12, 2012

Temperatures are falling and not tracking CO2.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (10) Apr 13, 2012
There is no such thing as "natural units".
That would be the units the raw data comes in.

You are just spouting Childish, Anti-scientific, Nonsense.
Says the king of ad hominem attacks.
wealthychef
5 / 5 (2) Apr 14, 2012
Which as we continue to point out is a lie being told by UbVonTard.

Not only are temperatures rising but they are tracking CO2 almost perfectly as the following plot shows.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

"Right, like how in the last 10 years CO2 has steadily risen, but global temperature has been steadily declining:" - UbVonTard

Actually, you chose a 15 year plot. I'm no climate change skeptic, but a 10 year plot shows temperature as flat: http://www.woodfo...set:-289
wealthychef
4 / 5 (1) Apr 14, 2012

Temperatures are falling and not tracking CO2.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289


Why is nobody acknowledging what the other side says? It's obvious to me that for the last 10 years, ubavontuba has definitively shown a slight decrease in temp vs CO2 rising, but that if you expand out to longer periods, it seems this apparent cooling trend is anomaly due to a very very hot hear in 2002, probably due to an El Nino or something.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2012
ParkerTard is of course a congenital liar. So is his sockpuppet UbVonTard

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

"Temperatures are falling and not tracking CO2." - parkerTard

One wonders what drives Libertarian Lowlifes like ParkerTard to create so many alternate accounts and flood groups with their Ideologically driven lies.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 14, 2012
Well, not if you actually use a 10 year plot - you didn't.

But here is one...

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

Actually, you chose a 15 year plot. I'm no climate change skeptic, but a 10 year plot shows temperature as flat:" - ahem

But of course 10 year plots show weather. Not climate, and are statistically insignificant in themselves.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2012
"That would be the units the raw data comes in." - UbVonTard

Would that be Celsius of Fahrenheit? PPMV of CO2 or percentage of atmosphere by weight, or fraction of atmosphere by weight? Or fraction of atmosphere by volume or percentage of atomsphere by volume or total moles or total tonnes, or total tones, or gigatonnes, grams, pounds, etc. etc. etc.

Poor UbVonTard. Ignorant to the last drop.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2012
And zero inches thick over exceptionally wide areas.

"The permafrost is frozen topsoil." - UbVonTard

Good luck trying to realize your Tard Boy vision of growing grain crops on the barren rock of the Canadian sheild.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2012

Temperatures are falling and not tracking CO2.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289


1) Temperatures are not much warmer than they were 68 or 70 Years ago,

HADCRUT3 http://www.cru.ue...t3gl.txt

Jan 1878 0.160
Jan 1942 0.215
Jan 1944 0.240

Jan 2011 0.194
Jan 2012 0.218

2) Sunshine is up.

http://i40.tinypi...fyok.jpg

CO2 doesn't cause warming.

Warming causes outgassing of CO2 from the oceans.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2012
NotParker is of course a smarter than me (VDtard). So is Ubavontuba.
Unlike you, I don't have any sockpuppets.

"Temperatures are falling and not tracking CO2." - NotParker

One wonders what drives Lowlifes like myself to create so many alternate accounts and flood groups with their Ideologically driven lies.
That's a good question, VDtard. What drives you to cover up the real data and lie?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2012
@VDtard:
But of course 10 year plots show weather. Not climate, and are statistically insignificant in themselves.
You really are stupid, aren't you? The article is about a decade long study.

Again: What in the phrase, "in the last 10 years " do you not understand?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2012
"That would be the units the raw data comes in." - Uba

Would that be Celsius of Fahrenheit? PPMV of CO2 or percentage of atmosphere by weight, or fraction of atmosphere by weight? Or fraction of atmosphere by volume or percentage of atomsphere by volume or total moles or total tonnes, or total tones, or gigatonnes, grams, pounds, etc. etc. etc.
What don't you understand about merging graphs? It's not about finding a common denominator. It's about realistically comparing data trends.

You're attempt to grossly smudge the data together and obscure the truth, certainly isn't very scientific.

Poor VDtard. Ignorant to the last drop.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2012
And zero inches thick over exceptionally wide areas.

"The permafrost is frozen topsoil." - Uba

Good luck trying to realize your vision of growing grain crops on the barren rock of the Canadian sheild.
This just serves to show how ignorant you are. Barren bedrock isn't 'permafrost."

"permafrost:
Permanently frozen subsoil, occurring throughout the Polar Regions and locally in perennially frigid areas."

http://www.thefre...rmafrost

And, the Canadian Shield isn't just barren rock.

"The Canadian Shield... is a vast geological shield covered by a thin layer of soil..."

http://en.wikiped...n_Shield

Your credibility suffers at your own hands, VDtard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2012
True. The non-linear nature of the now well established feedbacks, such as ice loss and corresponding increase in the northern hemisphere albedo, were projected to have increasing effects over time. A fact that is confirmed by observation.

"Temperatures are not much warmer than they were 68 or 70 Years ago," - ParkerTard

It took a hundred years of emissions to drive global temperatures above the noise level. But only 20 or 30 more years to drive them 50% above that.

The nonlinearity of carbon based fuel consumption is also assisting with the rise in temperature of course, as is readily seen in the keeling curve.

http://eoimages.g...2004.gif
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 14, 2012
Claims ParkerTard as he posts under the name of his sock puppet, immediately after a post under his primary name.

"Unlike you, I don't have any sockpuppets." - UbVontard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2012
By definition, Desert sand is also soil.

"permafrost: Permanently frozen subsoil, occurring throughout the Polar Regions and locally in perennially frigid areas." - UbVonTard

SOIL TYPE
In the lowlands of the Canadian Shield (Hudson Bay Area) the soil is soggy and is suitable for planting trees. However the area has many marshes and bogs. The rest of the region has thin course soil that doesnt hold moisture very well and is frozen year round. This is called the "tundra".
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 14, 2012
I'm not sure how using the same plotting source you are, with a NASA temperature set, over a longer period of time constitutes a "cover up".

You on the other hand seem fixated on using 1998 as your cherry picked starting point. As we have seen using 1997 or 1999 produces vastly different results than your cherry picked year 1998 does.

So I guess that tells us who is misrepresenting the data, doesn't it?

"What drives you to cover up the real data and lie?" - UbVonTard

Poor ParkerTard.... Even his sock puppets are clueless.
NotParker
2 / 5 (8) Apr 14, 2012

You on the other hand seem fixated on using 1998 as your cherry picked starting point.


Climate goes in natural cycles with peaks and valleys. 1998 was a peak.

As was 1942 and 1944. It is barely warmer than it was at that peak.

CO2 is an impotent GHG.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2012
Generally scientists don't merge graphs as you have done by overlaying two distinct units on the same axis and then ignorantly using the arbitrary offset or scale as an indication that the plotted trends differ.

Scale is of course dependent upon the the units chosen, making the relative slopes of the plot irrelevant, and the zero point for the units is also dependent on the units selected so the relative displacement of the plot is irrelevant.

Yet you have dishonestly overlaid two distinct plots with differing units, added an arbitrary offset and then claimed that on the basis of that offset that the plots do not show related trends.

"What don't you understand about merging graphs?" - UbVonTard

ParkerTard. Dishonest to the core.

Meanwhile

http://www.woodfo...set:-177
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Apr 14, 2012
So you are admitting that by fixating on 1998 as the start of your time series, you and your fellow denialists are knowingly engaging in deceit.

"1998 was a peak." - ParkerTard

It is always a pleasure exposing your Libertarian dishonesty ParkerTard.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 14, 2012
So you are admitting that by fixating on 1998 as the start of your time series, you and your fellow denialists are knowingly engaging in deceit.


Skeptics at least notice there was a pre-1950 warming period that was longer and steeper than the 1980-1998 warming period ... that ended.

The 1909-1944 one ended.

The 1980-1998 one ended.

Both were natural fluctuations.
kaasinees
0.3 / 5 (24) Apr 14, 2012

You on the other hand seem fixated on using 1998 as your cherry picked starting point.


Climate goes in natural cycles with peaks and valleys. 1998 was a peak.

As was 1942 and 1944. It is barely warmer than it was at that peak.

CO2 is an impotent GHG.


Melting ice means more ocean water to absorb CO2.
Melting ice means more ocean nutriunts for life to absorb CO2.
Melting ice also means more greenhouse gasses.
Greenhouse gasses have a "lag" because of various carbon sinks.
But the fact remains that all carbon sinks on earth are being exploited by human activity.
It is a very complex formula, but you can not ignore that the trend is a spiraling upwards.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 14, 2012
Generally scientists don't merge graphs


All the offsets and choices were from your graph. All I did was choose 2001 as the start year. Every other choice was yours.

Why do you deny it?
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 14, 2012

Melting ice means more ocean water to absorb CO2


Global Sea Ice is at the 30 year average.

Why so sad?

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg
kaasinees
0.3 / 5 (23) Apr 14, 2012

Melting ice means more ocean water to absorb CO2


Global Sea Ice is at the 30 year average.

Why so sad?

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg

Unless you are blind the trend is downwards.

Besides that ice area doesnt say a lot.
Where is the graph of ice THICKNESS?

Also try Russian snow/ice and Greenland snow/ice data.

Cherry picking a graph that is meaningless in its context is not an argument.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2012
By definition, Desert sand is also soil.
Argument of misdirection. What's that got to do with your claim the Canadian Shield is barren rock?

SOIL TYPE
In the lowlands of the Canadian Shield (Hudson Bay Area) the soil is soggy and is suitable for planting trees. However the area has many marshes and bogs. The rest of the region has thin course soil that doesnt hold moisture very well and is frozen year round. This is called the "tundra".
So you admit I was right and the Canadian Shield is covered in soil.

Warm it up, plow in a little organic matter, water, and voilà: Ideal corn plantin' soil.

"Sweet corn plants will grow in a variety of soil types, but growth is best in fertile, loamy, well drained soils..."

http://www.uri.ed...orn.html

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2012
I'm not sure how using the same plotting source you are, with a NASA temperature set, over a longer period of time constitutes a "cover up".
You're deliberately overwhelming the signal with excessive data.

You on the other hand seem fixated on using 1998 as your cherry picked starting point.
Because that's when it started (duh).

As we have seen using 1997 or 1999 produces vastly different results than your cherry picked year 1998 does.
Because those aren't the years the stall started (duh). Maybe you think my telling you Albert Einstein was born in 1879 means he never existed because he wasn't born the year before, or the year after?

So I guess that tells us who is misrepresenting the data, doesn't it?
Indeed, you are.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2012
Generally scientists don't merge graphs as you have done
True. I did so only as a matter of convenience for this site. I did show them separately, as well.

by overlaying two distinct units on the same axis and then ignorantly using the arbitrary offset or scale as an indication that the plotted trends differ.
Unlike you, I have not attempted to bend the data to make it match my preconceptions.

Scale is of course dependent upon the the units chosen,
Idiot. Scale is a multiplier of the data units, which is used to moderate or exaggerate the signal.

making the relative slopes of the plot irrelevant,
Wrong. Using scale to modify the slopes to "make it fit," as you have done, is irrelevant.

and the zero point for the units is also dependent on the units selected so the relative displacement of the plot is irrelevant.
Wrong again. The OFFSET is used to merge two disparate graphs so their data signals can be compared.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2012
Yet you have dishonestly overlaid two distinct plots with differing units, added an arbitrary offset and then claimed that on the basis of that offset that the plots do not show related trends.
No, the excessive modification was yours. I did my best to make the display reasonable, whereas your intent was clearly to "make it fit" your preconceptions.

Sadly, the woodfortrees.org site doesn't allow you to build a true comparison graph (data scales on both sides of the graph).

But your data comparison can be shown to be faulty simply by changing its time range. CO2 is irrelevant. Look, VDtard shows temperatures have been rising while CO2 has barely budged:

http://www.woodfo...set:-177

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012
One less or one more data point make the data excessive?

Hahahahahahaha...... By one statistical standard do you make that new dishonest claim?

"You're deliberately overwhelming the signal with excessive data." - UbVonTard

Here is the current global warming trend with the ongoing La-Nina removed.

http://tamino.fil...mp;h=325

Here is the trend without it removed.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

Not how closely the average temperature follows the CO2 increase.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (2) Apr 15, 2012
I see, How do you have a stall that starts in 1998 not be a stall
if the starting point is the next year?

Odd how you select your start year to be one of the warmest years on record due to an anomalously warm El-Nino - the strongest ever recorded that dramatically increased sea surface temperatures as never seen before.

The fact that the temperatures have not stalled if the start date avoids that start year by plus or minus 1 year, tells us that your start date is not a statistically valid year to start.

"Because those aren't the years the stall started (duh)." - UbVonTard

The analysis was conducted at the request of The Associated Press to investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet, fueled by some news reports, a new book and temperatures that have been cooler in a few recent years.

In short, it is not true, according to the statisticians who contributed to the AP analysis.

Cont...
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
The statisticians commented on the denialist method of cherry picking dates to support their (your) dishonest claims...

"If you look at the data and sort of cherry-pick a microtrend within a bigger trend, that technique is particularly suspect," said John Grego, a professor of statistics at the University of South Carolina."

"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."

Poor sock puppet UbVonTard. You just can't seem to tell the truth. How ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
Which of course is yet another lie from you.

"Unlike you, I have not attempted to bend the data to make it match my preconceptions." - UbVonTard

"Idiot. Scale is a multiplier of the data units, which is used to moderate or exaggerate the signal." - UbVontard

It is. And it is units dependent. And in this case, the units used - ppmv - could just as well be pptv which would change the numerical magnitude of the concentration by a factor of 1000.

And as any proportional measure can be used, so can any scale factor.

You seem to be as ignorant of basic algebra as you are of basic science Tard Boy.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
And that is why your complaint is irrelevant Tard Boy.

"Using scale to modify the slopes to "make it fit," as you have done, is irrelevant." - UbVonTard

Correlation is scale invariant.
What a shame that you are ignorant of that fact.

Go back to grade school Tard Boy. Maybe you can get some tutoring from a grade 6 science student.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
Wrong again Tard Boy. You accomplished the "merging" of the two time series by simply plotting them along the the same time axis.

Lines have two properties. Slope and offset.

You have just admitted to adjusting one of those two properties - offset.

I have shown above that slope is dependent on the units used. Hence with an appropriate choice of units (a reality in science) and offset (your modification), all lines can be made identical.

Your attempt to claim non-correlation based on a difference in slope after altering the offset is nothing more than anti-science nonsense that not even a good grade 8 student would fall for.

"The OFFSET is used to merge two disparate graphs so their data signals can be compared." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
Poor Ubvontard. He can't even adjust the dates honestly.

But your data comparison can be shown to be faulty simply by changing its time range. CO2 is irrelevant. Look," - UbVonTard

Here is the real adjustment.

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

Temperatures seem to be tracking CO2 concentrations quite well. as you must agree.

In fact, we can see from the graphic that global temperatures are rising faster than CO2 concentrations.

You poor Tard.....
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
http://www.worsle...dpic.jpg

http://www.worsle...ks03.jpg

http://upload.wik...ario.jpg

http://upload.wik...ield.jpg

http://upload.wik...-Cap.jpg

http://www.maggie...ocks.jpg

Why do you think they call it a "shield" Tard Boy? It is because it is as hard as rock. Because it is rock. Some of which is 3.4 billion years old.

"What's that got to do with your claim the Canadian Shield is barren rock?" - UbVonTard

Idiot.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
http://www.ontari...21_1.JPG

"Warm it up, plow in a little organic matter, water, and voilà: Ideal corn plantin' soil." - UbvonTard

http://www.bergoi...x768.jpg

http://members.sh...Rock.jpg

http://www.blogtr...x400.jpg

http://www.sussmu...x375.jpg

http://icons-ak.w.../529.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_1agIYQSNbRw/TLNNXxG5YmI/AAAAAAAAAT8/ZWL7brQxgis/s1600/SAM_0732.JPG

http://www.visual...3709.jpg

http://greenfyre....mp;h=281

I wouldn't trust UbVonTard to change his own diaper.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
UbVonTard thinks he can feed 9 billion people on "soil" like this.

http://www.ontari...24_1.JPG

Clearly he is mentally ill.

"Sweet corn plants will grow in a variety of soil types, but growth is best in fertile, loamy, well drained soils..." - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
One less or one more data point make the data excessive?
VDtard can't count. One year isn't "one data point."

By one statistical standard do you make that new dishonest claim?
VDtard thinks Albert Einstein didn't exist because he wasn't born in the year before or the year after his birth.

Here is the current global warming trend with the ongoing La-Nina removed.
So you admit you're using corrupted data.

Here is the trend without it removed.
Here's the last 14 years:

http://www.woodfo...set:-350

Not how closely the average temperature follows the CO2 increase.
Extended:

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

You've killed your own correlation.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
I see, How do you have a stall that starts in 1998 not be a stall if the starting point is the next year?
It's an average over time. You're using a data spike to corrupt the data. Stating, There's' been no net global warming since the end of 1998." doesn't mean some years weren't hotter or colder than others.

Odd how you select your start year to be one of the warmest years on record due to an anomalously warm El-Nino - the strongest ever recorded that dramatically increased sea surface temperatures as never seen before.
All you're saying here is the world has cooled since then. Are you advocating global cooling now?

All I did was test to see how many years i could go back where there's been no net global warming. Would you like to start from 2002?

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

Looky there! You're right. The world IS cooling!
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
...investigate the legitimacy of talk of a cooling trend that has been spreading on the Internet,...
I've not claimed a cooling trend (but apparently, you have). I've only stated there's been no net global warming in 14 years.

The statisticians commented on the denialist method of cherry picking dates to support their (your) dishonest claims...
I didn't cherry pick dates. I use only full years of data. It's not my fault the data shows no net global warming in 14 full years.

And, if you'd accuse me of cherry picking, how is using one more or less years any less cherry picking than my graph?

In short, you've just accused yourself of cherry picking!

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 15, 2012
"The last 10 years are the warmest 10-year period of the modern record," said NOAA climate monitoring chief Deke Arndt. "Even if you analyze the trend during that 10 years, the trend is actually positive, which means warming."
This comes from an October 26, 2009 article. It was true then:

http://www.woodfo...09/trend

...but not now:

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

And as any proportional measure can be used, so can any scale factor.

Correlation is scale invariant.
What a shame that you are ignorant of that fact.
True, but then your corollary falls off the rails when you extend the data set in time. You're proving your own claims to be false.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2012
Temperatures seem to be tracking CO2 concentrations quite well. as you must agree.
Actually no. You're graph shows they aren't tracking closely at all.

In fact, we can see from the graphic that global temperatures are rising faster than CO2 concentrations
You can't really say that, as the data isn't in the same units, and your graph is scale dependent.

If we adjust the scale so the trend does match:

http://www.woodfo...set:-319

and then zoom in:

http://www.woodfo...set:-300

We see that for the past 10 years, they no longer match.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 15, 2012
So it becomes plain you're attempting to overwhelm the current signal with excessive data.

Using your own data and scale factors, the current signal emerges every time. CO2 is rising, but temperatures aren't. In fact, it's been that way for 14 years:

http://www.woodfo...set:-300

Uba insists that he is going to grow corn here.
If it gets warm enough, sure. They already grow corn in Canada:

http://www.fas.us..._crn.htm

And wheat too:

http://www.smallg...nada.htm

Just imagine if the Northern areas opened up to agriculture! What a bonanza!

Those were some cool pictures of the countryside though. Thanks. Canada is a beautiful country.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012
"VDtard can't count. One year isn't "one data point." - UbVonTard

Actually since the earth's average temperature changes regularly over a year, so one year's worth of data is actually than one data point.

Poor UbVonTard. Clueless, ignorance, and rampant dishonesty times 10.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012
Perhaps you can explain to us how removing a data point is "overwhelming the current signal with excessive data"?

Ahahahahaha.......

Then you can explain to us how adding 1 data point to 10 others is "overwhelming".

Ahahahahah.......

In fact, everyone who even has a cursory knowledge of statistics knows that even the basic values mean, mode, median of a set grow increasingly statistically insignificant as the number of samples becomes less than 32.

Your meaningless sample count. 10.

Ahahahahahahahah......

"So it becomes plain you're attempting to overwhelm the current signal with excessive data." - UbVonTard

Poor UbVonTard. He can't even figure out grade school statistics.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012
Yes. Clustered around the great lakes corn is grown. But no crops are going to grow on the vast regions of the Canadian Shield as the over a dozen or so images I presented you with clearly document.

Insufficient soil.

"If it gets warm enough, sure. They already grow corn in Canada:" - UbVonTard

"Just imagine if the Northern areas opened up to agriculture!" - UbVonTard

The mentally ill often imagine many impossible things.

Once you figure out how to grow corn on barren rock, you get back to us with your plan Tard Boy.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012
Then you must not have seen it.

Here it is again...

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

Looks pretty much perfect to me.

Perhaps your psychological problems are preventing you from understanding the plot.

"Actually no. You're graph shows they aren't tracking closely at all." - UbVonTard

kaasinees
0.1 / 5 (23) Apr 15, 2012
I will join in.

What is there not to understand?

http://www.woodfo...79/trend
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012
Of course they do..

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

"We see that for the past 10 years, they no longer match." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Apr 15, 2012
Nothing as far as I can see. But UbVonTard seems to have some deep mental problems that require him to perpetually tell lies.

Given that he is just an alternate outlet for ParkerTard, who has identical mental problems, it isn't surprising that his alternate personality acts the same way.

"What is there not to understand?" - Kaasinees

I love the way the mental illness forces UbVonTard to think he can grow corn on top of stone.

Complete insanity.
kaasinees
0.1 / 5 (22) Apr 15, 2012
Updated my graph so it displays a better comparison between different data sets.

http://www.woodfo...se/trend

looks to me that CO2 has a great effect on global temperatures even though i picked land only instrumentation because it is more reliable.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 15, 2012
Note the 2'C confidence limits are computed at this site.

http://www.skepti...rend.php

In the short period of 10 years worth of data provides us with a 2 sigma trend that could be as high as 1.3'C per decade to -1.3'C per decade.

UbVonTard claims a decline of .9'C per decade from a data set that excludes the polar regions.

http://www.woodfo...09/trend

"This comes from an October 26, 2009 article. It was true then:" - UbVonTard

Well done Tard Boy.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
Yes and as we have seen, there has been warming over the last 13 years and the last 15 years, but just not over the last 14 years - which is your cherry picked starting date.

In reality, with 2 sigma limits the possible trends since 1998 to 2012 are a decline in temperatures by about 0.9'C per decade or a possible increase of about 1.'C per decade.

So you have shown nothing but the extent of your ignorance, and mental illness.

"I've only stated there's been no net global warming in 14 years." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 15, 2012
Yes. Extending the plot shows that global temperatures were growing at a slower rate than the rate of change of CO2, and now their growth rate with respect to CO2 has increased.

"True, but then your corollary falls off the rails when you extend the data set in time.?" - UbVonTard

Here are the potential temperature trends over the last 14 years using a 2 sigma confidence limit.

The central line is the best fit trend.

https://docs.goog...GM3lOcmM
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
"VDtard can't count. One year isn't "one data point." - Uba

Actually since the earth's average temperature changes regularly over a year, so one year's worth of data is actually than one data point.
You missed a word. What were you trying to say?

Poor VDtard. Clueless, ignorant, and rampant dishonesty times 375.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Then you can explain to us how adding 1 data point to 10 others is "overwhelming".


Adding one data point is the "start date" cherry picking to which you refernced earlier. But just for kicks, let's see your call for an additional data point (a "data point" is one month's compiled data):

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

Looky there. No change.

everyone... knows that even the basic values mean, mode, median of a set grow increasingly statistically insignificant as the number of samples becomes less than 32.
You don't even know what a sample is. For each data point, the samples number in the thousands.

Cite:
"Over land regions of the world over 3000 monthly station temperature time series are used."

http://www.cru.ue.../#datter

Your meaningless sample count. 10.
Again, you prove you're an idiot.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Yes. Clustered around the great lakes corn is grown. But no crops are going to grow on the vast regions of the Canadian Shield as the over a dozen or so images I presented you with clearly document.
Anecdotal pictures of interesting rocks can come from anywhere. Few people take pictures of dirt.

Insufficient soil.
Apparently, you missed the wheat growing area map? The major constraint to agriculture in Canada is the weather, not the soil.

Cite:
"its prairie farmland is N of the 49th parallel of latitude. Productive farming, therefore, depends upon crops that ripen early, if they are spring sown, or are winter hardy,"

http://www.thecan...es/crops

The mentally ill often imagine many impossible things.
Like your frozen cherry blossoms?

Once you figure out how to grow corn on barren rock, you get back to us with your plan.
There you go again claiming the Canadian shield is barren rock, even though I already proved otherwise.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
Actually since the earth's average temperature changes regularly over a year, one year's worth of data is actually less than one data point.

Here are the potential temperature trends over the last 14 years using a 2 sigma confidence limit.

The central line is the best fit trend.

https://docs.goog...it?pli=1
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
That would be true if it wasn't for the fact that I can move to any year in the modern era prior to 1998 and get essentially the same result.

And that is what makes your choice dishonest and evidence of your mental illness.

"Adding one data point is the "start date" cherry picking to which you refernced earlier." - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Then you must not have seen it.

Here it is again...

Looks pretty much perfect to me.
But not when you zoom in to the last decade:

http://www.woodfo...set:-273

Perhaps your psychological problems are preventing you from understanding the plot.
Says the moron who doesn't even know what a sample or a data point is.

"We see that for the past 10 years, they no longer match." - Uba
Of course they do..

http://www.woodfo...set:-289

Are you intentionally lying? Or, do you really not understand how long 10 years is?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
Are you sure it isn't one week of data? One day of data? One hour of data? One minute of data? One second of data? etc...

A month of data of course is invalid in itself since it is of short enough time scale to include the confounding factor that is the yearly regular variance in earth's average temperature.

Since you aren't taking steps to remove that factor - which you are adding - then you are doing nothing more than making your own data set LESS accurate and LESS statistically significant.

"But just for kicks, let's see your call for an additional data point (a "data point" is one month's compiled data):" - UbVonTard

You poor Tard. You really don't understand grade 7 statistics do you?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
I will join in.

What is there not to understand?

http://www.woodfo...79/trend
Here's all four global data series combined for the past decade:

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

Do you understand now?
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
Yes, but they were taken from the Canadian Shield. A vast region in which the soil was scraped away in the last glaciation and deposited largely in the U.S.

"Anecdotal pictures of interesting rocks can come from anywhere." - UbVonTard

Poor UbVonTard. As ignorant of Geography as you are of Statistics.

You are mentally ill boy. Seek psychiatric help immediately.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
And now you are combining a dataset Hadcrut3 which does not include the poles with datasets that do.

My, my... You are an ignorant Tard aren't you?

"Here's all four global data series combined for the past decade:" - UbVonTard

Meanwhile, here is the actual data set without UbVonTard's dishonesty.

https://docs.goog...it?pli=1

Note how remarkably well temperatures track Atmospheric CO2 concentration...

http://www.woodfo...set:-289
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Uba claims a decline of .9'C per decade from a data set that excludes the polar regions.
When did I claim that? I've never claimed any such thing.

I've only claimed global warming stalled out 14 years ago:

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

Yes and as we have seen, there has been warming over the last 13 years and the last 15 years, but just not over the last 14 years
Right. There's been no net global warming for 14 years.

which is your cherry picked starting date.
So, since Albert Einstein was born in 1879 and not 1878 or 1880, he never existed?

In reality, with 2 sigma limits the possible trends since 1998 to 2012 are a decline in temperatures by about 0.9'C per decade or a possible increase of about 1.'C per decade.
Whatever. There's been no net global warming in 14 years.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.8 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
Yes. He understands your dishonesty.

"Do you understand now?" - UbVonTard

I doubt that he understands the depth of your mental illness.

http://www.woodfo...79/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Actually since the earth's average temperature changes regularly over a year, one year's worth of data is actually less than one data point.
Obviously you don't know what a data point is.

"Noun 1. data point - an item of factual information derived from measurement or research"

http://www.thefre...ta+point

and:

"A line graph is a type of chart, which displays information as a series of data points connected by straight line segments. It is a basic type of chart common in many fields. It is an extension of a scatter graph, and is created by connecting a series of points that represent individual measurements with line segments. A line chart is often used to visualize a trend in data over intervals of time a time series thus the line is often drawn chronologically."

http://en.wikiped...ne_chart

If a whole year was one data point, it would be represented by a point on the graph, not by the chronological scale (X axis) itself.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
"Adding one data point is the "start date" cherry picking to which you referenced earlier." - Uba
That would be true if it wasn't for the fact that I can move to any year in the modern era prior to 1998 and get essentially the same result.
Of course. I've never denied there's been global warming up to 1998. In fact, quite the opposite.

And that is what makes your choice dishonest and evidence of your mental illness.
No. That would be your problem. You dishonestly add years of warming to skew the data while trying to hide the fact there's been no net global warming for 14 years.

Why not leave your cherry picked variations out of it and just admit my chart is true, and it shows no net global warming for 14 years? Seriously. Let's talk about MY chart. Is it, in itself, inaccurate in any way? No? Then admit it.

Ah, but you're too dishonest for that... aren't you?

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
I sympathize with you UbVonTard. Given your early grade school comprehension of science and your nonexistent comprehension of statistics, you can't be blamed for your foolishness.

"Obviously you don't know what a data point is." - UbVonTard

Ultimately I blame Capitalism for your ignorance, for it has destroyed the family unit and forced an unprepared and unwilling state to educate you. Incompetently.

Consider your own inability to comprehend the very definition you cite...

"data point - an item of factual information derived from measurement or research"

The yearly global average temperature is a factual item derived from measurement and research.

Hence it is a data point.

Poor UbVonTard. Are you even capable of learning?

I don't think so. Your mental illness prevents it.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Are you sure it isn't one week of data? One day of data? One hour of data? One minute of data? One second of data? etc...
Idiot. It's all of those. It's monthly averages taken from thousands of sites.

A month of data of course is invalid in itself since it is of short enough time scale to include the confounding factor that is the yearly regular variance in earth's average temperature.
Which is why I only use full calendar years of data.

Since you aren't taking steps to remove that factor - which you are adding - then you are doing nothing more than making your own data set LESS accurate and LESS statistically significant.
What don't you understand about using full calendar years?

You really don't understand grade 7 statistics do you?

Says the moron who doesn't know the difference between a sample, a data point, and a chronological scale!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Yes, but they were taken from the Canadian Shield. A vast region in which the soil was scraped away in the last glaciation and deposited largely in the U.S.
Are you really this stupid? Do we really need to go over this again?

Dude, the corn growing region we already discussed is right on top of the Canadian shield:

http://en.wikiped..._map.JPG

Poor Uba. As ignorant of Geography as you are of Statistics.
Obviously that would be you, in both cases.

You are mentally ill boy. Seek psychiatric help immediately.
Says the sicko self-described murderous eco-terrorist.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
Which makes your choice even less valid since you have made no attempt to smooth the data to avoid the yearly variance in the earth's distance from the sun and orientation, and hence base TSI.

To remove these effects from time series, running averages are used to smear the underlying high frequency variances together and retain the low frequency components of the data set.

You haven't used a running average have you? And hence your selection of a starting point on non-quantized years leaves your data even less statistically significant than before your effort.


"If a whole year was one data point, it would be represented by a point on the graph, not by the chronological scale (X axis) itself" - UbVonTard

You seem to be set on making every statistical mistake possible UbVonTard.

Do you enjoy humiliating yourself in public?

Is that your purpose here?

Is that the basis of your mental illness?
kaasinees
0.1 / 5 (23) Apr 16, 2012
This graph says it all.

http://www.woodfo...se/trend
kaasinees
0.1 / 5 (22) Apr 16, 2012
vendicar mentioned TSI as i was making the graph.

what sorcery is this ? :)
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
And now you are combining a dataset Hadcrut3 which does not include the poles with datasets that do.
Liar. HADcrut3 uses polar temperature data:

"Arctic monthly surface air temperatures north of 70N. Data source: HadCRUT3 temperature data."

http://www.climat...m#Arctic monthly surface air temperatures north of 70N

"Antarctic monthly surface air temperatures south of 70S. Data source: HadCRUT3 temperature data"

http://www.climat...ntarctic monthly surface air temperatures south of 70S

My, my... You are an ignorant Tard aren't you?
Again, you only prove you're the ignorant one.

Meanwhile, here is the actual data set.

Note how remarkably well temperatures track Atmospheric CO2 concentration...
Repeating lies and wishful thinking won't make your lies true.
kaasinees
0.1 / 5 (23) Apr 16, 2012
http://www.woodfo...se/trend

Stop lying parkertard.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
"data point - an item of factual information derived from measurement or research"

The yearly global average temperature is a factual item derived from measurement and research.
But it's not a data point on the graphs in question.

Hence it is a data point.
Sure, it CAN be used that way, but it's not used that way on the graphs we're using.

Seriously. Are you really this stupid?

I'm thinking you must be one of those much ballyhooed "climate bots" set upon the net to troll climate change skeptics.

http://gizmodo.co...-deniers

How else would you explain your awful demeanor and endless personal attacks?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
No Corn production on the Canadian shield.

http://www.fas.us..._yld.jpg

No production of Soybeans on the Canadian shield.

http://www.fas.us..._yld.jpg

No production of Oats on the Canadian shield.

http://www.fas.us..._yld.jpg

No production of Canola on the Canadian shield.

http://www.fas.us..._yld.jpg

Odd how wheat production also avoid the Canadian shield as well.

http://www.fas.us..._yld.jpg

Odd how the barly crops avoid the Canadian shield as well.

http://www.fas.us..._yld.jpg

"Dude, the corn growing region we already discussed is right on top of the Canadian shield:" - UbVonTard

In fact no agriculture at all on the Canadian shield.

http://www4.agr.g...-eng.jpg

Poor Mentally Ill UbVonTard.
kaasinees
0.2 / 5 (25) Apr 16, 2012
My final graph that explains ALL.

http://www.woodfo...se/trend

CO2 is scarily potent!!!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
Yes it does.

"This graph says it all." - Kaasinees

UbVonTard claims that in that mess there is a statistically significant trend of 0.00'C per year.

Man, that boy (ParkerTard) = UbVonTard has some serious brain damage.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Which makes your choice even less valid since you have made no attempt to smooth the data to avoid the yearly variance in the earth's distance from the sun and orientation, and hence base TSI.
All you're saying is I haven't corrupted the data by adding cherry picked changes to it.

To remove these effects from time series, running averages are used to smear the underlying high frequency variances together and retain the low frequency components of the data set.
Whatever. Here's a variance adjusted version:

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

You haven't used a running average have you? And hence your selection of a starting point on non-quantized years leaves your data even less statistically significant than before your effort.
It wouldn't matter. The trend would be the same. I'm not describing a running average. I'm describing a 14 year period of no net global warming.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
Are you hinting that you are a bot ParkerTard, UbVontard?

"How else would you explain your awful demeanor and endless personal attacks?" - UbVonTard

That would explain your apparent mental illness.
kaasinees
0.2 / 5 (24) Apr 16, 2012
In contrast it apppears that hte melting north pole ice is causing the ocean to temporarily cool down. Which is slowing down land warming at the moment, and even though that the land temperatures are still increasing.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
You Poor Boy. You can't even comprehend why adding high frequency noise to the data makes it less reliable, and your statistically insignificant 10 year analysis even more flawed and worthless.

"All you're saying is I haven't corrupted the data by adding cherry picked changes to it." - UbVonTard

You need to take up a vocation you are more suited to ParkerTard, UbVonTard. Endlessly telling lies isn't getting you anywhere.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
Bad Move Tard Boy. The variance adjusted in Hadcrut isn't a monthy variance in the global temperature, it is the variance of temperature significance with grid box size.

"Whatever. Here's a variance adjusted version:" - UbVonTard

You clearly don't have a clue of what it is that you are presenting, or it's significance.

Like any untrained monkey you have managed to figure out how to push buttons on a form and produce a line. But you haven't a clue to where that line comes from, what it means, or even if it is significant.

You are chronically clueless, and a chronic liar.

Stop lying ParkerTard, UbvonTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
"In contrast it apppears that hte melting north pole ice is causing the ocean to temporarily cool down." - Kaasiness

That is indeed part of it, as well as a long La-Nina cycle, and a very small reduction in TSI.

Once these confounding factors (and others) are removed from the data, the following is obtained...

http://www.skepti...nal.html
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
You are doing nothing but jabbering statistically insignificant nonsense.

"I'm describing a 14 year period of no net global warming." - UbVonTard

And then continually lying about it.

A proper statistical analysis of those 15 years indicates a possible trend as high as 1'C and as low as -0.9'C using 2 sigma confidence limits.

Stop Lying ParkerTard, UbVonTard. You are only making your mental illness worse.

http://www.skepti...nal.html
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
Hadcrut 3 excludes vast areas of the north by not adjusting for the variance of grid cell size, and presuming that all grid elements (defined by angular degree) are equal in size.

"Liar. HADcrut3 uses polar temperature data:" - UbVonTard

Poor UbVonTard. You aren't even capable of reading your own references.

From your reference....

"As data coverage is sparse in the Antarctic region, the procedure of Gillet et al. 2008 has been followed preparing the above diagram, giving equal weight to data in each 5ox5o grid cell when calculating means, with no weighting by the areas of the grid dells."

Get psychiatric help immediately UbVonTard, ParkerTard. You are in desperate need.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2012
No Corn production on the Canadian shield.

http://www.fas.us..._yld.jpg
Now it becomes obvious you don't even know where the Canadian Shield is! The highest yields (blue, green, and yellow) are right on top of it.

http://faculty.ma...fCan.htm

It's the same with several of your links. The highest yields are on the southern part of the shield, around the Great Lakes region (mostly because it's the southern most (warmest) part of Canada).

Most of Canada (shield or not) is not farmed becaue it's simply too cold and too far away from population centers.

Sure, a lot of the shield is unsuitable for agriculture because it's too rocky, but not all of it. But that's true anywhere.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
Quite impossible, since a running average has no way to manage the leading or trailing edge of data, and a forward running average necessarily causes an apparent delay in the signal since data ahead in the time series is averaged with the data behind.

"It wouldn't matter. The trend would be the same." - UbVonTard

Once again, your near zero comprehension of statistics and statistical methods causes you to fall flat on your face.

You must have a pan head by now.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
The variance adjusted in Hadcrut isn't a monthy variance in the global temperature, it is the variance of temperature significance with grid box size.
Sure, but it's adjusted/manipulated. Isn't that what you wanted?

You clearly don't have a clue of what it is that you are presenting, or it's significance.
Actually, I do. I'm showing a 14 year long stall in net global warming. Why are you trying to cover it up?

Like any untrained monkey you have managed to figure out how to push buttons on a form and produce a line. But you haven't a clue to where that line comes from, what it means, or even if it is significant.
Says the idiot who didn't know the difference between samples, data points, and chronological scales.

You are chronically clueless, and a chronic liar.
I know you are, but what am I?
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
"Now it becomes obvious you don't even know where the Canadian Shield is!" - UbVonTard

Your maps nicely show that Canadian Corn production occurs where the Canadian Shield Ain't.

But what is more telling is this map...

http://www.fas.us...area.jpg

Which shows that all of Eastern Canada, Quebec, and virtually all of the Maritimes combined constitute less than 1 percent of Canada's corn production.

Virtually ALL of Canada's corn production is in Southern Ontario - just outside the Canadian Shield, with some along the north of the St. Laurence river - also outside the Canadian Shield.

Now go take your medication ParkerTard, UbVonTard, before you soil your diapers.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
Dishonestly manipulating data is your Standard Operating Procedure Tard Boy.

"Sure, but it's adjusted/manipulated. Isn't that what you wanted?" - UbVonTard

The variance you have not corrected for is the variance in TSI over the year.

The fact that you ignorantly thought that grid size corrections were the same as corrections for sunlight intensity and variations in the the earth's reflectivity shows how laughably ignorant you are.

Your response. 'There I gone and done found some dang correction so like there it must be the correction I gone and dang needed to not be a fool.'

Sorry Tard Boy. You just exposed more of your own ignorance.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Hadcrut 3 excludes vast areas of the north by not adjusting for the variance of grid cell size, and presuming that all grid elements (defined by angular degree) are equal in size.

Poor UbVonTard. You aren't even capable of reading your own references.

From your reference....

"As data coverage is sparse in the Antarctic region, the procedure of Gillet et al. 2008 has been followed preparing the above diagram, giving equal weight to data in each 5ox5o grid cell when calculating means, with no weighting by the areas of the grid dells."
So? You said HADcrut3 didn't use polar temperature data. You were wrong (as usual).

Get psychiatric help immediately. You are in desperate need.
Says the lying, sicko, eco-terrorist.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
Ah... This stall....

http://www.woodfo...09/trend

"I'm showing a 14 year long stall" - UbVonTard

No, you are showing that you are a 11 year old mental patient.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Quite impossible, since a running average has no way to manage the leading or trailing edge of data, and a forward running average necessarily causes an apparent delay in the signal since data ahead in the time series is averaged with the data behind.

"It wouldn't matter. The trend would be the same." - UbVonTard

Once again, your near zero comprehension of statistics and statistical methods causes you to fall flat on your face.

You must have a pan head by now.
See? You don't even know the difference between a running average and a trend! Get a clue!
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 16, 2012
Hadcrut excludes large areas of the polar regions.

That is why you use it... Moron... Because it shows a lower level of global warming than the other data sets that do correct for grid size.

"So? You said HADcrut3 didn't use polar temperature data." - UbVonTard

You don't even have a clue as to why you chose the data set that you chose.

What a moron.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 16, 2012
The more you whine, misrepresent, and lie, the more you look like a moron ParkerTard, UbvonTard.

"You don't even know the difference between a running average and a trend! Get a clue!" - UbVonTard

I just told you. Ahahahahahahahahaah.......
and you still can't figure it out.

Now go take your medication, you are hallucinating.

http://www.woodfo...09/trend
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
You ain't seen nothing yet ParkerTard, UbVonTard

"Says the lying, sicko, eco-terrorist." - UbVonTard

Now get to bed child. It's way past your nappies time.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal

http://www.skepti...nal.html

Yet another loss for ParkerTard

How can he stand being such a low life loser?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
"Now it becomes obvious you don't even know where the Canadian Shield is!" - UbVonTard

Your maps nicely show that Canadian Corn production occurs where the Canadian Shield Ain't.

But what is more telling is this map...

http://www.fas.us...area.jpg

Which shows that all of Eastern Canada, Quebec, and virtually all of the Maritimes combined constitute less than 1 percent of Canada's corn production.
Of course. It's too cold for corn!

Virtually ALL of Canada's corn production is in Southern Ontario - just outside the Canadian Shield, with some along the north of the St. Laurence river - also outside the Canadian Shield.
Only becasue it's the "warmest" part of Canada.

Corn isn't a cold weather crop, which was the point to begin with.

http://expert.ias...corn.htm
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2012
Dishonestly manipulating data is your Standard Operating Procedure.
No, that's your M.O..

The variance you have not corrected for is the variance in TSI over the year.
Why would I correct for that? The temperature is the temperature. It doesn't need "correcting."

The fact that you ignorantly thought that grid size corrections were the same as corrections for sunlight intensity and variations in the the earth's reflectivity shows how laughably ignorant you are.
Straw man. I never made any such claim. But you claimed HADcrut3 didn't use polar data.

Your response. 'There I gone and done found some dang correction so like there it must be the correction I gone and dang needed to not be a fool.'
Sounds more like you, seeking any "correction" you can to skew the data to your point of view.

You just exposed more of your own ignorance.
I know you did, but what about me?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
I'm showing a 14 year long stall - Uba
Ah... This stall....
See, there you go again, substituting different data for the data in question.

Why do you feel the need to do that? Are you afraid of the truth?

No, you are showing that you are a 11 year old mental patient.
Again, you.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Apr 16, 2012
Hadcrut excludes large areas of the polar regions.

That is why you use it... Moron... Because it shows a lower level of global warming than the other data sets that do correct for grid size.
Actually, HADCRUT3 and RSS are about the same. UAH shows a slight warming trend. GISTEMP (AGwites favorite because it shows the most warming) shows a rise until 2002. From then on even it's flat.

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

You don't even have a clue as to why you chose the data set that you chose.
I originally chose it because it was the most relevant to an article I was commenting on. But in researching it, I also feel it's likely the most useful. That is, it's the most relevant to population centers.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2012
The more you whine, misrepresent, and lie, the more you look like a moron.
It's not my fault you make yourself look stupid.

"You don't even know the difference between a running average and a trend! Get a clue!" - Uba
I just told you. ...and you still can't figure it out.
You STILL don't know the difference between a running average and a trend! Get a clue!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 16, 2012
Foster and Rahmstorf Measure the Global Warming Signal

http://www.skepti...nal.html
Corrupted data. Is that all you have?

Jeez... We might as well state: It's Monday, except for variations in Earth's orbit causing it to be Sunday, but it's really Tuesday because Gregorian calendars are Western-centric. But Tuesday was two days ago ...therefore it must be Wednesday.

The temperature is the temperature. There's been no net global warming (for any reason) for 14 years:

http://www.woodfo...12/trend
foolspoo
1 / 5 (4) Apr 16, 2012
decade? DECADE?! THAT IS SO IRRELEVANT TO CLIMATE
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
It is quite telling that you consider adding a year of data to be "corruption".

It says much of your own Corruption on climate matters.

I see that once again you have tried to mislead by cherry picking a starting date for your trend and have again switched to using a data set that omits large regions of the poles. Areas where the earth is warming most rapidly.

And once again you have ignored the fact that your trend hopelessly has no statistical significance.

https://docs.goog...it?pli=1

"Corrupted data. Is that all you have?" - UbVonTard

Ideological corruption IS all you have.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
Is that the way it works in you Tard Universe?

"We might as well state: It's Monday, except for variations in Earth's orbit causing it to be Sunday, but it's really Tuesday " - UbVonTard

Meanwhile...

http://www.skepti...Fig5.jpg
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
I've been telling him that for weeks.

"DECADE?! THAT IS SO IRRELEVANT TO CLIMATE" - Fools

His response was that a decade was as far back as he can go and still show no change in temperature.

But that he isn't cherry picking the start date.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 18, 2012
UbVonTard seems to be quite unwilling to use the most modern HadCrut data set that eliminates most of the anti-bias in the polar regions.

The reason is clear. It makes him a liar.

Here is the data set... HadCrut4 green, 3 (biased blue)

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

"The temperature is the temperature. There's been no net global warming (for any reason) for 14 years:" - UbVonTard

Poor UbVonTard. The universe just refuses to conform to his lies.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
It is quite telling that you consider adding a year of data to be "corruption".
As would stating Einstein was born in a different year, corrupted data.

It says much of your own Corruption on climate matters.
Yes, that's it's accurate and true.

I see that once again you have tried to mislead by cherry picking a starting date for your trend
The beginning of the trend is the beginning. Any other selection is incorrect.

and have again switched to using a data set that omits large regions of the poles.
It's a standard climate data set. Even yours shows warming for the past decade.

Areas where the earth is warming most rapidly.
Explain how that works. Is it magic?

And once again you have ignored the fact that your trend hopelessly has no statistical significance.
But you just proved it is statistically significant, in another thread (thanks).

Ideological corruption IS all you have.
Says the king of ad hominem attacks.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
"We might as well state: It's Monday, except for variations in Earth's orbit causing it to be Sunday, but it's really Tuesday " - Uba
Is that the way it works in you Tard Universe?
Nope. But this seems to be the case in yours.

Meanwhile...

http://woodfortre...12/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
"DECADE?! THAT IS SO IRRELEVANT TO CLIMATE"
I've been telling him that for weeks.
And then you just went and proved I was right all along.

His response was that a decade was as far back as he can go and still show no change in temperature.
Actually, it's 14 years.

http://woodfortre...12/trend

But that he isn't cherry picking the start date.
Correct.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
UbVonTard seems to be quite unwilling to use the most modern HadCrut data set that eliminates most of the anti-bias in the polar regions.
It's good data, unless you would claim these esteemed climate scientists are lying!

Here is the data set... HadCrut4 green, 3 (biased blue)
HADcrut4 doesn't show 2011 data. Why is that, do you suppose?

Oh look, here's HADcrut4 over HADcrut3:

http://woodfortre...12/trend

Look, they align almost perfectly. Gee, do you think they held off on reporting 2011 for a reason? They wouldn't be intentionally withholding data now, would they?

Even still, they show a significant stall:

http://woodfortre...12/trend
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
Repeat (first post got messed up in editing):

UbVonTard seems to be quite unwilling to use the most modern HadCrut data set that eliminates most of the anti-bias in the polar regions.
It's good data, unless you would claim these esteemed climate scientists are lying!

Here is the data set... HadCrut4 green, 3 (biased blue)
HADcrut4 doesn't show 2011 data. Why is that, do you suppose?

Oh look, here's HADcrut4 over HADcrut3:

http://woodfortre.../to:2012

Look, they align almost perfectly. Gee, do you think they held off on reporting 2011 for a reason? They wouldn't be intentionally withholding data now, would they?

Even still, they show a significant stall:

http://woodfortre...12/trend

Poor VDtard. The universe just refuses to conform to his lies.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
The data is not in question. Your dishonest misrepresentation of it is.

For example your use of HadCrut3 which omits vast regions of both poles. Your selection of an anomalously warm year as a starting point, and your use of a statistically insignificant short sample period.

You employ one dishonesty upon another until you find the result you wish, and then claim that it is representative.

"It's good data, unless you would claim these esteemed climate scientists are lying!" - UbVonTard

Meanwhile data sets are available that don't misrepresent exclude the polar regions, and we can select more representative dates.

http://woodfortre...12/trend

And what we find is a 0.2'C rise in global temperatures over 15 years.

http://woodfortre...12/trend

So why continue to lie UbVonTard? I will just continue to expose you.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
Clearly it is a conspiracy to keep you looking like a moron.

"HADcrut4 doesn't show 2011 data. Why is that, do you suppose?" - UbVonTard

Meanwhile the statistical trend computed by the methods described here http://iopscience...4/044022 produces a trend of 0.212 0.097 C/decade at a 2 confidence limit over the interval from 1998 to 2012 (GISS).

From 2001 to 2012 the trend is 0.175 0.142 C/decade

Over the same 11 year period, the trend is 0.110 0.102 C/decade (Hadcrut3) and 0.202 0.148 C/decade UHA

All readily computeable with confidence limits at http://www.skepti...-fr.php.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
"The beginning of the trend is the beginning. Any other selection is incorrect." - UbVonTard

Mindless. Completely mindless.

Meanwhile....

Statisticians reject global cooling
Some skeptics claim Earth is cooling despite contrary data

http://www.msnbc....EoLPY_nE

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 19, 2012
Arctic sea ice extent...

http://www.skepti...2010.gif

Ice volume way below normal. North pole projected to be ice free in summer sometime around 2030.

Arctic ice volume.

http://www.skepti...lume.gif

Poor ParkerTard/UbvonTard. Lying is all he has left.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2012
Arctic sea ice extent...


Normal!

The end of the world is canceled to the utter dismay of charlatans everywhere!

http://arctic-roo..._ext.png
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 20, 2012
Only if a chronic deficit in ice cover is considered normal.

Ice Volume is way down.

"Normal!" - Parker Tard

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

Outright lying is all ParkerTard and his alter-ego UbVonTard have left.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
The data is not in question. Your dishonest misrepresentation of it is.

For example your use of HadCrut3 which omits vast regions of both poles.
Please explain how the poles are "warming faster than anywhere else." Is it magic?

Your selection of an anomalously warm year as a starting point, Idiot. In a retrogression, the "start" date relates to the question. In this case, the question is: How long has it been since we've any global warming?

and your use of a statistically insignificant short sample period.
Liar. You proved yourself, with your own references, that 10 years is statistically significant.

Meanwhile data sets are available that don't misrepresent exclude the polar regions, and we can select more representative dates.
How can the ice be growing, if the poles are supposedly warming?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2012
Arctic sea ice extent...

Ice volume way below normal. North pole projected to be ice free in summer sometime around 2030.

Arctic ice volume.
Idiot.

"Ice extent this March ranked ninth lowest out of the 34 years of satellite data for the month, but it was the highest March average ice extent since 2008 and one of the higher March extents in the past decade."

"Ice cover remained extensive in the Bering Sea, where it has been above average all winter. Ice extent was also higher than average in Baffin Bay, between Greenland and Canada, and the Sea of Okhotsk, east of Russia."

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
To intellectual inferiors, science is indistinguishable from magic.

"Please explain how the poles are "warming faster than anywhere else." Is it magic?" - UbVonTard

So yes, it is heap big mojo science to you.

On three other occasions the mechanism for polar warming has been explained to you, and you still keep asking the same question.

Clearly you don't have the capacity to understand the grade school science in the explanations.

So for you.. It's all mojo science magic.

Now get lost.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
I'm sorry you seem to be confusing me with you.

You must have noticed a reflection in your monitor and got all confused over who was typing what.

"Liar. You proved yourself, with your own references, that 10 years is statistically significant." - UbVonTard

As can be seen from the following plot. 2 sigma confidence limits put the possible trend over the time period from 1'C per decade to -0.9'C per decade.

https://lh4.googl...Yy4bmZD0

Your claim that the trend is 0'C per decade is therefore nothing more than statistical nonsense on your part.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2012
Sad. UbVonTard can't even figure out the difference between ice volume and ice extent.

"Ice volume way below normal. North pole projected to be ice free in summer sometime around 2030.

Arctic ice volume." - VD

"Idiot. Ice extent this March..." - UbVonTard

Is it even possible to get any more brain damaged than that?

Meanwhile arctic ice extent continues to be below historical norms. Currently 142 thousand square miles smaller.

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png

http://arctic.atm...ctic.png
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 23, 2012
"Please explain how the poles are "warming faster than anywhere else." Is it magic?" - Uba
To intellectual inferiors, science is indistinguishable from magic.
All you're accomplishing here is to falsify your own claims.

On three other occasions the mechanism for polar warming has been explained to you, and you still keep asking the same question.
To what "three other occasions" do you refer? Did you provide relevant references?

Now get lost.
What's the matter? Is the truth interfering with your ideology?
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2012
People like UbVonTard/ParkerTard are incapable of being educated.

Death is the only cure for their perpetual ignorance and deceit.