'Warming hole' delayed climate change over eastern United States: study

Apr 26, 2012
This figure illustrates the mean effect on surface temperature, during the period 1970-1990, of particulate pollution. The central region was cooled by as much as 1 degree Celsius. Credit: Image courtesy of Eric Liebensberger

Climate scientists at the Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences (SEAS) have discovered that particulate pollution in the late 20th century created a "warming hole" over the eastern United States—that is, a cold patch where the effects of global warming were temporarily obscured.

While greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide and methane warm the Earth's surface, tiny particles in the air can have the reverse effect on regional scales.

"What we've shown is that over the eastern has delayed the warming that we would expect to see from increasing greenhouse gases," says lead author Eric Leibensperger (Ph.D. '11), who completed the work as a graduate student in applied physics at SEAS.

"For the sake of protecting human health and reducing acid rain, we've now cut the emissions that lead to particulate pollution," he adds, "but these cuts have caused the greenhouse warming in this region to ramp up to match the global trend."

At this point, most of the "catch-up" warming has already occurred.

The findings, published in the journal Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics, present a more complete picture of the processes that affect regional climate change. The work also carries significant implications for the future climate of industrial nations, like China, that have not yet implemented air quality regulations to the same extent as the United States.

Until the United States passed the Clean Air Act in 1970 and strengthened it in 1990, particulate pollution hung thick over the central and eastern states. Most of these particles in the atmosphere were made of sulfate, originating as sulfur emissions from coal-fired power plants. Compared to greenhouse gases, particulate pollution has a very short lifetime (about 1 week), so its distribution over the Earth is uneven.

This map illustrates the observed change in surface air temperature between 1930 and 1990. Observations are from the NASA GISS Surface Temperature Analysis. Credit: Image courtesy of Eric Leibensperger

"The primary driver of the warming hole is the aerosol pollution—these small particles," says Leibensperger. "What they do is reflect incoming sunlight, so we see a cooling effect at the surface."

This effect has been known for some time, but the new analysis demonstrates the strong impact that decreases in particulate pollution can have on regional climate.

The researchers found that interactions between clouds and particles amplified the cooling. Particles of pollution can act as nucleation sites for cloud droplets, which can in turn reflect even more sunlight than the particles would individually, leading to greater cooling at the surface.

The researchers' analysis is based on a combination of two complex models of Earth systems. The pollution data comes from the GEOS-Chem model, which was first developed at Harvard and, through a series of many updates, has since become an international standard for modeling pollution over time. The climate data comes from the general circulation model developed by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Both models are rooted in decades' worth of observational data.

Since the early 20th century, global mean temperatures have risen by approximately 0.8 degrees Celsius from 1906 to 2005, but in the U.S. "warming hole," temperatures decreased by as much as 1 degree Celsius during the period 1930-1990. U.S. particulate pollution peaked in 1980 and has since been reduced by about half. By 2010 the average cooling effect over the East had fallen to just 0.3 degrees Celsius.

"Such a large fraction of the sulfate has already been removed that we don't have much more warming coming along due to further controls on sulfur emissions in the future," says principal investigator Daniel Jacob, the Vasco McCoy Family Professor of Atmospheric Chemistry and Environmental Engineering at SEAS.

Jacob is also a Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard and a faculty associate of the Harvard University Center for the Environment.

Besides confirming that particulate pollution plays a large role in affecting U.S. regional climate, the research emphasizes the importance of accounting for the climate impacts of particulates in future air quality policies.

"Something similar could happen in China, which is just beginning to tighten up its pollution standards," says co-author Loretta J. Mickley, a Senior Research Fellow in atmospheric chemistry at SEAS. "China could see significant climate change due to declining levels of particulate pollutants."

Sulfates are harmful to human health and can also cause acid rain, which damages ecosystems and erodes buildings.

"No one is suggesting that we should stop improving air quality, but it's important to understand the consequences. Clearing the air could lead to regional warming," Mickley says.

Explore further: NASA sees intensifying typhoon Phanfone heading toward Japan

Related Stories

Warming world in range of dangerous consequences

Sep 17, 2008

The earth will warm about 2.4° C (4.3° F) above pre-industrial levels even under extremely conservative greenhouse-gas emission scenarios and under the assumption that efforts to clean up particulate pollution ...

Faster Climate Change Predicted as Air Quality Improves

Jun 29, 2005

Global warming may proceed faster and be more severe than previously predicted according to research about to be published in the scientific journal Nature. Reductions in airborne particle pollution, or aerosols, as air qu ...

Pollutant Haze Heats the Arctic

May 11, 2006

Arctic climate already is known to be particularly prone to global warming caused by industrial and automotive emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. Now, a University of Utah study finds a surprising new ...

Recommended for you

Sculpting tropical peaks

Oct 01, 2014

Tropical mountain ranges erode quickly, as heavy year-round rains feed raging rivers and trigger huge, fast-moving landslides. Rapid erosion produces rugged terrain, with steep rivers running through deep ...

User comments : 197

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

islatas
2.6 / 5 (17) Apr 26, 2012
Sooo ramp up the coal fired plants and go back to Tier 2 bin 5 emissions for diesels....and have everyone drive diesels? Sounds like the cure to global warming has been found! Hurray!
kaasinees
1.3 / 5 (37) Apr 26, 2012
Sooo ramp up the coal fired plants and go back to Tier 2 bin 5 emissions for diesels....and have everyone drive diesels? Sounds like the cure to global warming has been found! Hurray!

No it means go back to burning high sulphur containing coal which causes acid rain and damages our forests.
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (27) Apr 26, 2012
When the scientists try to stifle contrary views, that might fall under "business as usual" even though its card to call it science. But when they try to hide their own contrary data and analysis, or manipulate (or fabricate) data to achieve the desired results (e.g. the "hockey stick"), it is hard to avoid concluding that they are perpetrating a hoax.

I have no doubt that algore is motivated by the billions a year that his companies would make from carbon credit trading rather than by any sense that he is saving the planet.

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (21) Apr 26, 2012
Black carbon absorbs sunlight and creates warming. Or so AGW cult members say when it is convenient.

"According to some estimates, black carbon may be responsible for as much as 18% of the planet's warming, making it the No. 2 contributor to climate change"

http://www.time.c...,00.html

"A new study from scientists at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab), published in Nature Climate Change, has quantitatively demonstrated that black carbonalso known as soot, a pollutant emitted from power plants, diesel engines and residential cooking and heating, as well as forest firesreduces the reflectance of snow and ice, an effect that increases the rate of global climate change."

http://phys.org/n...ous.html

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (23) Apr 26, 2012

Wait!!!! Parts of the US cooled by 1C. Did anyone mention this before on the AGW side?

"but in the U.S. "warming hole," temperatures decreased by as much as 1 degree Celsius during the period 1930-1990"

All kidding aside ... the 1930s were the warmest decade in the US. Of course it cooled after that.
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (24) Apr 26, 2012

Wait ... just cleaning the air caused it to warm by .7C?????

"By 2010 the average cooling effect over the East had fallen to just 0.3 degrees Celsius."

OMG. CO2 never did anything. All warming was because of clean air legislation!!!!!!

islatas
4.9 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2012
It's common knowledge that particulate matter in the atmostphere can induce cooling. This phenomenom has been tracked as a direct result of large volcanic eruptions as well. You may have experienced a more localized and more temporary version of this sort of cooling by witnessing a cloud pass overhead where previously you were in direct sunlight. This article sure does put a strange tone to the data though. It's presented as though the warming we've experienced was actually a reduction in artificial cooling.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (26) Apr 26, 2012
"It's presented as though the warming we've experienced was actually a reduction in artificial cooling."

Very perceptive. Its a tough situation for the AGW cultists. They have to explain the cooling without damaging the AGW too much.

The trouble is, that region has been cooling since 1900, not just 1930.

http://sunshineho...ce-1900/
kaasinees
1.7 / 5 (46) Apr 26, 2012
No it means that the upper atmosphere is cooler in that region while the lower atmosphere gets supplied heat from the surrounding regions which amplifies extreme weather.
It in no way disproves global warming.
NotParker
2 / 5 (23) Apr 26, 2012
No it means that the upper atmosphere is cooler in that region while the lower atmosphere gets supplied heat from the surrounding regions which amplifies extreme weather.

It in no way disproves global warming.


The paper suggests cleaning the air of sulphates causes large amounts of warming. Many countries cleaned their air starting in the 1950s and then really got serious from 1980 on.

The US, Canada, UK, France , Germany , Japan etc etc.
kaasinees
1.6 / 5 (42) Apr 26, 2012
Yeah because aerosols damage the ozone layer and sulphur acidifies our atmosphere...

What is there not to understand?
mememine69
2.3 / 5 (22) Apr 26, 2012
"climate change is a threat to the planet" -Earth Hour
How could something as powerful as being able to threaten an entire planet, be delayed or challenged by anything? Climate change was a consultant's wet dream.
Feynman and Galileo are watching and you unconscionable fear mongers and climate change scientists have done to science, what abusive priests and suicide bombers did for religion.
Meanwhile, the entire world of SCIENCE had allowed bank-funded and corporate-run CARBON TRADING STOCK MARKETS to trump 3rd world fresh water relief, starvation rescue and 3rd world education for just over 26 years of insane attempts at climate CONTROL.
You virtually condemned billions of children to the greenhouse gas ovens, (including your own) knowing the exaggeration all along. You led us to a false war.
pauljpease
3.9 / 5 (16) Apr 26, 2012
Black carbon absorbs sunlight and creates warming. Or so AGW cult members say when it is convenient.

"According to some estimates, black carbon may be responsible for as much as 18% of the planet's warming, making it the No. 2 contributor to climate change"

http://www.time.c...,00.html



This article is about the cooling effect of aerosols and fine particulate matter in the atmosphere. The studies you cite are about completely different things. But feel free to misconstrue facts and display your general lack of scientific literacy. We all know that no amount of evidence will change your mind.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (16) Apr 26, 2012
"Black carbon warms the Earth by absorbing heat in the atmosphere ..."

"The steady reduction of smoke pollution in the industrial cities of Europe and United States caused a shift in research emphasis away from soot emissions and the almost complete neglect of black carbon as a significant aerosol constituent, at least in the United States. In the 1970s, however, a series of studies largely conducted by the Novakov group at Lawrence Berkeley Lab substantially changed this picture and demonstrated that black carbon as well as the organic soot components continued to be a large component in urban aerosols across the United States and Europe"

http://en.wikiped...k_carbon

HROLLER
1 / 5 (4) Apr 26, 2012
GeoEngineering:

"Why in the World are They Spraying?" Official Trailer
http://www.youtub..._ssxTvNc

What in the World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)
http://www.youtub...khstYDLA
NotParker
1.8 / 5 (20) Apr 26, 2012
"but in the U.S. "warming hole," temperatures decreased by as much as 1 degree Celsius during the period 1930-1990. "

From 1930 to 1990 the NOAA said the "Ohio Valley Region cooled at a rate of -0.28 degF / Decade = 1.68F

But from 1990 to 2010 it only warmed at .09F / Decade which is only .18F

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

Somebody is telling fibs!!!!
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (21) Apr 26, 2012
From 1930 to 1980 the "Ohio Valley Region" cooled at a rate of -0.44 degF / Decade.

From 1980 to 1998 the "Ohio Valley Region" warmed at a rate of 0.33 degF / Decade.

From 1998 to 2010 the "Ohio Valley Region" cooled at a rate of -1.23 degF / Decade.

Oh oh .... that ruins this theory, unless they think aerosols increased by a massive amount after 1998.
StarGazer2011
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 26, 2012
Ahh ok I get it... when a doomsday cults predictions are shown to be false they generally claim that actions by the cultists prevented doomsday.
With other religious cults its prayer and sacrifice. With CAGW cultists the answer for the lack of warming is SO2; its a bit different because its not the cultists actions themselves.
They already tried this to explain the AGW 'hiatus' since 1998 by claiming (without evidence) that the lack of warming was caused by Chinese SO2 emissions. SO2 is great for CAGW cultists because there is little data for it, they can fudge it to defend their failed hypothesis for a few billion dollars more.
StarGazer2011
2.2 / 5 (17) Apr 26, 2012
No it means that the upper atmosphere is cooler in that region while the lower atmosphere gets supplied heat from the surrounding regions which amplifies extreme weather.
It in no way disproves global warming.


"The primary driver of the warming hole is the aerosol pollutionthese small particles," says Leibensperger. "What they do is reflect incoming sunlight, so we see a cooling effect at the surface."

learn to read, cultist. You are contradicting 'The Science!', ten carbon demerits and five hail Gores.

NotParker
1.6 / 5 (19) Apr 26, 2012
From 1930 to 1980 the "Ohio Valley Region" cooled at a rate of -0.44 degF / Decade.


So ... while CO2 was rising it cooled by 2.2F.


From 1980 to 1998 the "Ohio Valley Region" warmed at a rate of 0.33 degF / Decade.


And the cult exploded blaming all warming on CO2 and ignored the cooling that happened right up to 1998.

14 years later, some AGW cult member decided to try and explain the 1930 to 1980 cooling. But in a nasty bit of misdirection, tries to claim the cooling continued until 1990. It didn't.

And then they totally ignored the even steeping cooling that started after 1998!

From 1998 to 2010 the "Ohio Valley Region" cooled at a rate of -1.23 degF / Decade.


Oh oh .... that ruins this theory, unless they think aerosols increased by a massive amount after 1998.
mememine69
2 / 5 (16) Apr 26, 2012

This planet lover is fed up with you heartless fear mongers holding your spear of CO2 fear to my children's backs as you condemn my kids to your greenhouse gas ovens with your childish liberal glee.
Fear mongering the voter's children will keep you clowns out of office for decades. Keep yapping.
packrat
2 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2012
This year was the first time in 40 years I've had to cut the grass in my yard during the second week of Feb. Say what ever you want about the climate but it IS changing. Lately for the last few years it has been just plain weird. Whether that is good or bad we will find out in time.
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (11) Apr 26, 2012
The article does show the sulfur particulates do effect surface temperature. Sulfur from dirty coal fired electric plants. Nothing new here. Right in the middle of that hole is Kansas City, and they had there hottest summer EVER last year. So, if we remove this particulate soup from the equations the AGW WARMING IS EVEN HIGHER!

You deniers salivating over the smallest hints the us AGW proponents are wrong. Your not even close.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 26, 2012
The article does show the sulfur particulates do effect surface temperature.


So they are responsible for the cooling from 1930 to 1980 and the cooling since 1998 and the warming from 1980 to 1998?

I love the AGW cult. Sulphates cause warming when convenient and cooling when you want to explain inconvenient cooling.

NotParker
1.9 / 5 (18) Apr 26, 2012
Right in the middle of that hole is Kansas City, and they had there hottest summer EVER last year.


The summer of 2011 in the state of Kansas was the 5th warmest according to NOAA.

2.6F colder than the summer of 1934 and also behind 1936, 1980 and 1954.

Annual temperature for Kansas in 2011 ranked 88 out of 117. The top 5 were 1934,1954,1946, 1938 and 1933.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 26, 2012

Annual temperature for Kansas in 2011 ranked 88 out of 117. The top 5 were 1934,1954,1946, 1938 and 1933.


2006 was the only recent year to make the top 10 - tied for 7th with 1921.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
Arkansas. 1921 was warmest. 1998 was #2. The rest of the top 5 are 1938, 1954 and 1933.

The warmest year this century in Arkansas was 2006 ranked 99th out of 117.

2011 was 98th out of 117. 2F colder than 1921.

Did you know 2009 and 2008 were tied for 20th out of 117?

Both 4F colder than 1921.

Brrr.
Caliban
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2012
"It's presented as though the warming we've experienced was actually a reduction in artificial cooling."


Very perceptive. Its a tough situation for the AGW cultists. They have to explain the cooling without damaging the AGW too much.


@NotParker --or should I say "Not Perceptive"...?

Remove the denial-colored glasses and reread the article. What it is saying is that the Eastern US has experienced artificial cooling due to sulfate emissions. These peaked in the 80s, and now are at a new, lower concentration due Clean Air Act regulations.

This means that the amount of cooling they produced has tapered off as emissions troughed sometime in the 90s, and that we have been experiencing(sliding-scalewise) an increased rate of warming, or, conversely, decreased rate of cooling.

Either way you choose to view it, the Eastern US warming rate is coming into equilibrium with the overall rate, and we are seeing a continued increase in average annual temp in the East US.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2012
Arkansas. 1921 was warmest. 1998 was #2. The rest of the top 5 are 1938, 1954 and 1933.

The warmest year this century in Arkansas was 2006 ranked 99th out of 117.

2011 was 98th out of 117. 2F colder than 1921.

Did you know 2009 and 2008 were tied for 20th out of 117?

Both 4F colder than 1921.

Brrr.


I forgot to mention this.

1896 was tied for 110 out of 117. Warmer than every year after 1998.

Only .4F colder than the warmest year.

1897 was tied with 2011.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2012
Remove the denial-colored glasses and reread the article. What it is saying is that the Eastern US has experienced artificial cooling due to sulfate emissions.


They say that. And fail to note that it started cooling again after 1998.

Are you saying sulphates went up again?

What is really going on is them trying to explain why (for example) 1896 in Missouri was warmer than 2011 and 1897 was tied with 2011.

They decided to try sulphates and expected gullible people to not check the temperature record for the region in discussion.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (44) Apr 27, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. he still hasn't managed to figure out the difference between a regional average and one of his cherry picked exceptions to the trend.

His continual repetition of the same dishonest argument is clear evidence of a mental disorder.


"Arkansas. 1921 was warmest. 1998 was #2. The rest of the top 5 are 1938, 1954 and 1933." - ParkerTard
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2012
Remove the denial-colored glasses and reread the article. What it is saying is that the Eastern US has experienced artificial cooling due to sulfate emissions.


They say that. And fail to note that it started cooling again after 1998.

Are you saying sulphates went up again?

What is really going on is them trying to explain why (for example) 1896 in Missouri was warmer than 2011 and 1897 was tied with 2011.

They decided to try sulphates and expected gullible people to not check the temperature record for the region in discussion.

and we are seeing a continued increase in average annual temp in the East US


But not since 1998 in the region in discussion. The NOAA said the OHIO VALLEY region has cooled by a great deal since 1998.

http://www.ncdc.n...nal.html
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (44) Apr 27, 2012
Out of five people who walked through the door, their heights were 70 inches, 69 inches, 68.75 inches, 68.5 inches and 50 inches.

ParkerTard therefore publicly states that the world population is growing shorter and will vanish altogether in less than 50 years.

"They say that. And fail to note that it started cooling again after 1998." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is a mental disorder.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2012
Poor VD humiliator. he still hasn't managed to figure out the difference between a regional average and one of his cherry picked exceptions to the trend.


Feel free to pick a state in the region under discussion and take a look at the data.

Illinois. Not one year this century made the top 10

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

Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (44) Apr 27, 2012
But in Fredonia North Carolina, temperatures fell from 1950 to 1980 at which point they started rising again.

http://www.wunder...ocal.asp

Exactly in accordance with sulphate emissions.

"1896 in Missouri was warmer than 2011 and 1897 was tied with 2011." - ParkerTard

Poor, never honest, ParkerTard.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2012
Tennessee.

2011 ranked 88 out of 117.

2010 46 out of 118. Brrr.

2009 and 2008 ranked 36th out of 117. Colddd!!!!!!!!!
Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (44) Apr 27, 2012
Annual Temperature Ohio Valley Region

http://climvis.nc...play3.pl

Temperatures decrease from 1932 to 1980 and then rise afterward, in accordance with particulate emissions.

Annual Temperature Illinois

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

Temperatures decreasing from 1935 to 1980 and increasing past that point.

Feel free to pick a state in the region under discussion and take a look at the data." - ParkerTard

Poor Parker Tard. Even his own source of information proves his assertions to be lies.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.8 / 5 (43) Apr 27, 2012
Annual Temperature Southeast Region

http://climvis.nc...play3.pl

Temperatures shown decreasing from the 1930's to roughly 1980 and then increasing past that point, in accordance with particulate emissions.

Once again Poor Parker Tard's own source of information proves his assertions to be lies.

He is mentally ill.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.9 / 5 (44) Apr 27, 2012
Poor Parker Tard, he dishonestly presumes that all temperature changes occur by the same cause, and if it was aerosol's in the 1960's then it it must always be aerosol's.

Parker Tard is mentally ill.

"They say that. And fail to note that it started cooling again after 1998. Are you saying sulphates went up again?" - ParkerTard

Parker Tard must love humiliating himself. Probably into BDSM as well.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2012
Annual Temperature Southeast Region


As far away as possible from the center of the "hole" but I'll play ...

Cooling at -0.44 degF / Decade from 1998.

Not one year this century in the top 10.

Top 10 : 1990, 1921, 1998, 1933, 1949, 1927, 1911, 1922, 1932 and 1925.

The trend from 1895: Cooling at -0.01 degF/decade

The trend from 1990: Cooling at -0.06 degF / Decade

And go back and check the numbers from my posts. VD's are hilariously dishonest.
NotParker
1.9 / 5 (14) Apr 27, 2012
From 1930 to 1980 the "Ohio Valley Region" cooled at a rate of -0.44 degF / Decade.

From 1980 to 1998 the "Ohio Valley Region" warmed at a rate of 0.33 degF / Decade.

From 1998 to 2010 the "Ohio Valley Region" cooled at a rate of -1.23 degF / Decade.



Oh oh .... that ruins this theory, unless they think aerosols increased by a massive amount after 1998.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (41) Apr 27, 2012
ParkerTard is correct on this issue, but then the emissions of soot were the first thing to be controlled by Government regulation since soot was visible.

What Parker Tard would like to keep hidden is the fact that along with the soot, particles of white pollutants like sulfates are also emitted that reflect sunlight away from the surface of the earth thus causing regional cooling - as shown above in the Ohio Region data.

This cooling became very evident in the 60's and 70's. Hence the concern by journalists for continued cooling in the 70's

"Black carbon absorbs sunlight and creates warming. Or so AGW cult members say when it is convenient." - ParkerTard
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2012
ParkerTard is correct on this issue, but then the emissions of soot were the first thing to be controlled by Government regulation since soot was visible.


"By extension, all the warming weve seen is clearly due to the reduction in the use of high particulate fuels such as wood and coal in the 1800s, which were replaced with oil and gas, and then particulates were reduced further by clean air regulations. So, all the warming weve seen over the last two hundred years is just us cleaning up our own act and the planet returning to itz normal state?"

http://wattsupwit...t-969038
NotParker
2 / 5 (12) Apr 27, 2012
particles of white pollutants like sulfates are also emitted that reflect sunlight away from the surface of the earth thus causing regional cooling


Why did the cooling start again after 1998?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 27, 2012
What cooling?

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

"Why did the cooling start again after 1998?" - ParkerTard

Really Tard boy. You need to get a better act. You desire to humiliate yourself in public just doesn't cut it. Not even as a comedy.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 27, 2012
Arkansas.


Worth repeating:

1896 was tied for 110 out of 117. Warmer than every year after 1998.

Only .4F colder than the warmest year.

1897 was tied with 2011.

2 years from the 1800s!!!
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (41) Apr 27, 2012
Wow, Parker Tard provides as a reference a blog post by a nonscience nobody named David M Hoffer who has publicly advanced his own personal theories that violate the laws of themodynamics.

Comments posted to a blog site that is funded in part by the Corrupt Heritage (smoking is good for you) Foundation and run by former TV Weather man Anthony Watts who has gone back on his word to support the results of the "BEST" surface temperature analysis, now that it has come out contrary to the dictates of his Conesrvative Liedeology.

"By extension, all the warming weve seen is clearly due to the reduction in the use of high particulate fuels such as wood and coal in the 1800s" - DavidMHoffer

ParkerTard's mental illness runs deep.
mosahlah
1 / 5 (1) Apr 27, 2012
Sooo ramp up the coal fired plants and go back to Tier 2 bin 5 emissions for diesels....and have everyone drive diesels? Sounds like the cure to global warming has been found! Hurray!

No it means go back to burning high sulphur containing coal which causes acid rain and damages our forests.


Yeah, but we all know the world will end if we don't stop global warming, so wood burning stoves for all.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (41) Apr 27, 2012
Parker Tard's latest lie is easy to expose.

From the NASA GISSTEMP global temperature set.

http://data.giss....3/GLB.Ts dSST.txt

The global Annual Mean Temp. J-D 1896 was 56.89'C
The Global annual Mean Temp. J-D 1998 was 58.22'C

"1896 was tied for 110 out of 117. Warmer than every year after 1998." - ParkerTard

Poor Parker Tard, he proves himself to be a chronic liar with almost every one of his posts.

He is mentally ill.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.7 / 5 (41) Apr 27, 2012
As his alternate persona UbVonTard, ParkerTard has made considerable use of the data plotter available at woodfortrees.org

Yet he now claims that the numbers from it are "hilariously dishonest".

What does that say about ParkerTard's honesty?

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

"And go back and check the numbers from my posts. VD's are hilariously dishonest." - ParkerTard

Parker Tard's mental illness is permanent.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Apr 27, 2012
You should ask yourself if highly variable weather is optimal for crop production.

Here where I am, after mid March temperatures that were summer-like, tomorrow night we will have lows that are -5'C. If those temps are obtained then the local strawberry crop will be devastated along with most of the orchards that managed to survive the last deep freeze.

And of course, it isn't just crops that are affected, it is also the plants that produce food for wildlife.

"Lately for the last few years it has been just plain weird. Whether that is good or bad we will find out in time." - packrat
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (40) Apr 27, 2012
After years of whining about the non-existent "cooling scare" in the 70's Parker Tard now can't seem to recognize the cooling that
caused journalists, (not scientists), of the 70's to grow concerned.

"Wait!!!! Parts of the US cooled by 1C. Did anyone mention this before on the AGW side?" - ParkerTard

Parker Tard never misses a chance to publicly humiliate himself.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (10) Apr 27, 2012
You should ask yourself if highly variable weather is optimal for crop production.

Here where I am, after mid March temperatures that were summer-like, tomorrow night we will have lows that are -5'C. If those temps are obtained then the local strawberry crop will be devastated along with most of the orchards that managed to survive the last deep freeze.

And of course, it isn't just crops that are affected, it is also the plants that produce food for wildlife.
Imaginary frozen cherry blossoms, again? Oh wait, now it's imaginary frozen strawberries. And get this... he's complaining of hard freezes in the Spring, while arguing the world is warming! What a buffoon.

VDtard is a lying climate 'bot and he's exposed as such, again.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 27, 2012
Temperatures this cold in April are not unusual. What is unusual were the high temperatures that brought summer temperatures in March and the early part of April which caused plants to begin their spring growth a month early.

Magnolia trees were particularly devastated in mid April as frosts destroyed their flowers.

Should air temperatures now fall to -5 as forecast, all ground plants will suffer heavy damage due to the hard "killing frost".

"Imaginary frozen cherry blossoms, again? Oh wait, now it's imaginary frozen strawberries." - ParkerTard/UbVonTard

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
This is some of the worst climate science I've seen anywhere. There's simply no excuse for this, so I'm going to have to shred it, as it deserves:

The picture plots the haze like it's a stagnant cloud which sat there 24/7, for decades.

The prevailing winds in this region move from SW to NE. So, they're essentially suggesting the bulk of this particulate production occurred in East Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. Ri-i-ght. That's a coal burnin', energy producin', industrial region, if ever there was one (not!).

Maybe they're trying to imply it was particulates from cow farts?

Worse, their argument fails for some of the hottest regions of the world, which suffer the worst particulate pollution (Sahara, anyone?)

http://www.nasa.g...ing.html

And, it's not like NE American air is all that clean now:

http://www.nasa.g...-map.JPG

Ba-a-ad science! BA-A-AD science!

Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 27, 2012
Of course it is since it is more evidence against the Fraud you have been perpetrating here.

"This is some of the worst climate science I've seen anywhere. " - UbVonTard

Absolutely, Static pictures are a conspiracy against your Conservative ideals, as are maps, static sculpture, and paintings.

"The picture plots the haze like it's a stagnant cloud which sat there 24/7, for decades." - UbVonTard

Maybe they did no such thing and your mental illness just makes you think they did.

"Maybe they're trying to imply it was particulates from cow farts?" - UbVonTard

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Apr 27, 2012
Good link Tard Boy. It shows how extensive the particulates are that are in part currently lowering global temperatures.

Bad air is no longer concentrated in the U.S.

http://www.nasa.g...ing.html
- UbVonTard

How sad for you that your mental illness is preventing you from realizing that your own links argue counter to your own assertions.

Pathetic.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 27, 2012
Temperatures this cold in April are not unusual. What is unusual were the high temperatures that brought summer temperatures in March and the early part of April which caused plants to begin their spring growth a month early.

Magnolia trees were particularly devastated in mid April as frosts destroyed their flowers.
This isn't so unusual:

"But, the deciduous magnolias are what are catching our attention right now. Because of their very early blooming season, some years the display may be cut short by a hard freeze during bloom."

http://easttexasg...lia.html

Should air temperatures now fall to -5 as forecast, all ground plants will suffer heavy damage due to the hard "killing frost".
So what are you arguing for? ...MORE global warming then?

Birger
5 / 5 (3) Apr 27, 2012
NotParker, did you read

"[particles/soot] reduces the reflectance of snow and ice"

In other words when soot falls on the arctic polar ice it induces warming. When it is still in the air it partially blocks the sun and induces cooling (or slows down warming).
So pollution from coal powerplants both cools and warms, depending on where it is. None of this is rocket science. The interesting part is the degree of cooling and/or warming. This article has sorted out part of the question.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 27, 2012
Good link. It shows how extensive the particulates are that are in part currently lowering global temperatures.

Bad air is no longer concentrated in the U.S.

http://www.nasa.g...ing.html
- Uba

How sad for you that your own links argue counter to your own assertions.
Really? So now you would argue the worst anthropomorphic pollution is in the Sahara? Or is it you think camel farts are causing it? 'Cause it sure aint exactly covered with coal-fired power plants.

VDtard thinks camel farts are cause global cooling!

When will VDtard's madness end?

A2G
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
It is becoming more and more obvious that there has been just a wee bit of lying going on. We can all talk all we want about what different papers say. Co2 etc.

But all you have to do is go look at the raw temperature data for yourself. That is the story.

AGW is a scam.
Egleton
3.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2012
I came here for amusement. The Denialists never let me down.

Wait!! Perhaps the Bureau of Meteorology of Australia is in cahoots with Al Gore and Satan and the Illuminati to defraud us of millions.And enslave our children. And steal our lollies.

(Evil Laughter backstage)

All too easy.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Apr 27, 2012
Summer Temperatures in March are certainly unusual, as was the entire North American Winter that was basically missing - an extended fall followed by 2 weeks of summer followed by spring.

"This isn't so unusual:" - UbVonTard

It hasn't happened before in living memory.

Rational people... Honest people... Consider that unusual.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 27, 2012
Yup, and here is the data for the last 15 years.

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

And the last 30 years...

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

"But all you have to do is go look at the raw temperature data for yourself." - A2G
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 27, 2012
It's the moon men. Clearly. They have bases there and the Illuminati are keeping you from knowing about it by directing their Luciferian moon beams at your brain.

"So now you would argue the worst anthropomorphic pollution is in the Sahara?" - UbVonTard

Those beams are why you can't sleep at night, and spend your evenings posting denialist nonsense.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 27, 2012
Increases in weather variability produce increases in crop failure.

The failure of local crops of cherries, and strawberries are illustrative of the problem, as is the loss of the magnolia flowers and associated fruits.

I even have grapes forming on vines, and several frosts have caused them to already begin to ripen - 6 months early.

"So what are you arguing for? ...MORE global warming then?" - UbVonTard

Do you intend to remain an idiot for the rest of your life Tard Boy?
islatas
3 / 5 (2) Apr 27, 2012
Summer Temperatures in March are certainly unusual, as was the entire North American Winter that was basically missing - an extended fall followed by 2 weeks of summer followed by spring.

"This isn't so unusual:" - UbVonTard


I'm defnitely not on the global warming denial bandwagon, just wanted to clarify. However, you can't chastise someone for cherry picking and then do it yourself. Sure, this winter was very mild for most of North America. Last winter and the winter before it were not. They were records for the NE US in the other direction with cooler temperatures prevailing until June. July 2011 was the hottest month on record, but August wasn't even close and I believe was the wettest month on record (may have been September) with 4-8 inches of cool rain per week. The southwest US would have a very different opinion about that same time period. Point being local anecdotes don't mean much. It's about the global tendancy over time.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012

In other words when soot falls on the arctic polar ice it induces warming. When it is still in the air it partially blocks the sun and induces cooling (or slows down warming).
So pollution from coal powerplants both cools and warms, depending on where it is.


Of course it does .... because black coal dust on the ground or on the snow that falls in the US in the North East is magical pixie coals dust that has zero effect because some AGW cult leader says so.

Use your brain. If soot on snow causes it to melt, then soot on the ground will have a similar but slightly less dramatic effect.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
as a reference a blog post by a nonscience nobody


This article we are comment on is in agreement with the "nobody" you just tried to smear.

The "nobody" at least has a brain and extended this research to the logical conclusion.

If cleaning the air causes warming, and the air was filthy with coal dust in the 1800s and early 1900s, then all warming in the 20th century could be because of cleaner air.

Logical ... which is why you went on a super smear. You hate logic.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
Arkansas.


Worth repeating:

1896 was tied for 110 out of 117. Warmer than every year after 1998.

Only .4F colder than the warmest year.

1897 was tied with 2011.

2 years from the 1800s!!!


Reference: http://www.ncdc.n.../ar.html

Pick Annual and Rank and Table.

1896 - tied with 1934 at 110 out of 117. Only 7 years were warmer.

Or pick trend.

Cooling of -0.03 degF / Decade from 1895 to 2011.

COOLING for over 100 years.

CO2 is such a wimp it can't even warm up a state in the south.

rubberman
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2012

In other words when soot falls on the arctic polar ice it induces warming. When it is still in the air it partially blocks the sun and induces cooling (or slows down warming).
So pollution from coal powerplants both cools and warms, depending on where it is.


Of course it does .... because black coal dust on the ground or on the snow that falls in the US in the North East is magical pixie coals dust that has zero effect because some AGW cult leader says so.

Use your brain. If soot on snow causes it to melt, then soot on the ground will have a similar but slightly less dramatic effect.


You are fried. Soot on snow does cause it to melt, soot on the ground...well if ground and snow had similar properties the effect would be similar, but since they are nothing alike there is no similarity at all. Lastly, the article is talking about Sulphate particulates...they aren't black. That is all.
Feel free to resume your delusional postings now.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
"Black carbon comes from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels, mostly through diesel engines and biomass burning - including in cook stoves and brick kilns.

It heats the atmosphere directly"

http://www.bbc.co...12548160

"Black carbon is the most strongly lightabsorbing component of particulate matter (PM)"

"In the United States, deposition of BC on mountain glaciers and snow packs has been shown to reduce snow cover and overall snowpack and to contribute to earlier spring melting, which reduces the amount of meltwater available later in the year."

http://junkscienc...raft.pdf
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
Summer Temperatures in March are certainly unusual, as was the entire North American Winter that was basically missing - an extended fall followed by 2 weeks of summer followed by spring.
What the...? Are you having trouble paying attention?

You're blaming an unusually kind arctic oscillation on global warming, during one of the globe's coolest winters in two decades? Really? So then, are you suggesting we need MORE global warming to "solve" this "problem?" ...'cause it gettin' cooler appears to be the CAUSE of your concern! LOL!

It hasn't happened before in living memory.
So?

Rational people... Honest people... Consider that unusual.
Just because it's unusual (and unusually pleasant), doesn't mean it's a matter of concern.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
Yup, and here is the data for the last 15 years.
Why is it missing 2011 data? Try this one:

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

And the last 30 years...
And the last 10 (includes multiple global temperature source data):

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

Oopsie. It looks like global warming stalled out more than 10 years ago!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
It's the moon men. Clearly. They have bases there and the Illuminati are keeping you from knowing about it by directing their Luciferian moon beams at your brain.

"So now you would argue the worst anthropomorphic pollution is in the Sahara?" - Uba

Those beams are why you can't sleep at night, and spend your evenings posting denialist nonsense.
So this is your idea of a response when you don't have a real answer? Why bother at all?

VDtard thinks camel farts cause global cooling! LOL!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 27, 2012
Increases in weather variability produce increases in crop failure.
Moron. It can go either way. Sometimes, unusual weather brings bumper harvests!

The failure of local crops of cherries, and strawberries are illustrative of the problem, as is the loss of the magnolia flowers and associated fruits.
More imaginary frozen cherry blossoms? Are you high?

And to what local failure of cherry and strawberry crops do you refer? Your garden, perhaps?

"Tenn. strawberry crop looks to be best in years"

http://www.wsmv.c...in-years

I even have grapes forming on vines, and several frosts have caused them to already begin to ripen - 6 months early.
So global warming causes frost now?

Do you intend to remain an idiot for the rest of your life?
I never was, but apparently you are.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2012
This is some of the worst climate science I've seen anywhere. There's simply no excuse for this, so I'm going to have to shred it, as it deserves:

The picture plots the haze like it's a stagnant cloud which sat there 24/7, for decades.

The prevailing winds in this region move from SW to NE. So, they're essentially suggesting the bulk of this particulate production occurred in East Texas, Oklahoma, Louisiana and Arkansas. Ri-i-ght. That's a coal burnin', energy producin', industrial region, if ever there was one (not!).

Ba-a-ad science! BA-A-AD science!



From the article:
"Both models are rooted in decades' worth of observational data."
Add to this the peer review process required to publish an article of this nature and you can attempt to shred it all you want but as with most research, I'll choose to believe the people who did it...as opposed to narrow minded fool who just doesn't get it and feels compelled to attempt to ridicule it.
rubberman
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2012
"The picture plots the haze like it's a stagnant cloud which sat there 24/7, for decades."

Also genius, regarding this particular stellar observation. Unless they shut down the power plants that were the source of the pollution, the particulate measurements would look precisely as these do. The prevailing winds you mentioned would cause the atmospheric content to trail off somewhere over the Atlantic. Regardless of wind direction, the concentration would be highest above the active points of generation which in this case is the north eastern US for the last several decades.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (11) Apr 27, 2012
the concentration would be highest above the active points of generation which in this case is the north eastern US for the last several decades.


NOAA says Ohio Valley temperatures bottomed out in 1980 and started to rise.

Why? The air was still filthy in 1990.

http://epa.gov/ca...8991.gif

http://epa.gov/ca...onc.html

I think this whole paper is a fake designed explain the cooling that gradually started in the 20s and 30s (even though the 30s were clearly warmer than today) and to con AGW cult members into believe man has control over temperatures.

Natural up and down cycles are the climate driver.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012
From the article:
"Both models are rooted in decades' worth of observational data."
Add to this the peer review process required to publish an article of this nature and you can attempt to shred it all you want but as with most research, I'll choose to believe the people who did it...as opposed to narrow minded fool who just doesn't get it and feels compelled to attempt to ridicule it.
This is nothing more than an appeal to authority.

Just because you can program a model to behave a certain way doesn't mean it has any bearing on reality. Obviously, this combined model is missing a lot of "real world" data.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Apr 28, 2012
"The picture plots the haze like it's a stagnant cloud which sat there 24/7, for decades."

Also genius, regarding this particular stellar observation. Unless they shut down the power plants that were the source of the pollution, the particulate measurements would look precisely as these do. The prevailing winds you mentioned would cause the atmospheric content to trail off somewhere over the Atlantic. Regardless of wind direction, the concentration would be highest above the active points of generation which in this case is the north eastern US for the last several decades.
Uh, you did notice the "highest concentration" is above Arkansas, didn't you (hardly an industrial titan)? Arkansas only has 3 coal-fired power plants!

Colorado (unaffected) has 15. Wyoming has 10. North Dakota has 10. Why aren't they similarly affected?

Pennsylvania has 40 coal plants. Why isn't it the most affected?

ccr5Delta32
4.3 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012
I think this whole paper is a fake designed explain the cooling that
gradually started in the 20s and 30s (even though the 30s were clearly warmer than today) and to con AGW cult members into believe man has control over temperatures.


So you're a conspiracy theorist

The enemies of the paranoid are everywhere
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012
I think this whole paper is a fake designed explain the cooling that
gradually started in the 20s and 30s (even though the 30s were clearly warmer than today) and to con AGW cult members into believe man has control over temperatures.


So you're a conspiracy theorist

The enemies of the paranoid are everywhere


I'll quote from the article:

" but in the U.S. "warming hole," temperatures decreased by as much as 1 degree Celsius during the period 1930-1990"

Tell me which prominent "Climate Scientists" or "Climate Science Website" has told you that a very large part of the USA cooled by 1C since 1930?

The conspiracy part is them implying that the region has caught up.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
Sulfate aerosols are not black Tard Boy. And this is the primary emission from coal plants in the late 50's through 70's that are well known to increase atmospheric albedo and cause the observed cooling.

Sulfate Cooling Effect on Climate Through In-Cloud Oxidation of Anthropogenic SO2 - Jos Lelieveld, Jost Heintzenberg - Science 2 October 1992: Vol. 258 no. 5079 pp. 117-120

Much earlier references can be found in the scientific literature and you can read about some of the earlier research here...

http://www.washin...69e.html

"black coal dust on the ground or on the snow that falls in the US in the North East is magical pixie coals dust" - ParkerTard

As to black carbon, it's absorption spectra obviously does not change with altitude, but it's effective emissivity does. Black materials are black because they down-convert the energy they absorb - typically into the IR region. CONT...
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 28, 2012
Black dust on the surface of the earth either radiates into the atmosphere above or the ground below. In either case the surface air or the ground is warmed in the process.

The same particle of dust floating at high altitude will absorb essentially the same amount of solar radiation, (more on average due to the lack of clouds above), but since the atmosphere is greatly rarified at such altitudes the radiation that it emits in large amount will simply escape into space and produce no significant secondary warming of the atmosphere around it while at the same time it shades the earth below.

So it doesn't take magic pixie coal dust to do the things that it does. But it does take Tard Boy scientific illiteracy to insist that magic is required.

Poor delusional ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 28, 2012
Poor ParkerTard now confuses a regional cooling with an observed warming that is global in extent.

"If cleaning the air causes warming, and the air was filthy with coal dust in the 1800s and early 1900s, then all warming in the 20th century could be because of cleaner air." - ParkerTard

It takes considerable effort to be as wrong as ParkerTard is on virtually every issue.

One wonders why he is here. Certainly it isn't to learn. He is incapable of that.

"This article we are comment on is in agreement with the "nobody" you just tried to smear." - ParkerTard

Illustrating very nicely that you don't have a clue as to what the article stated. Your mental illness appears to be clouding your comprehension.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 28, 2012
More global warming will produce more of the climate variability that I have cited as being a bad thing for food production.

"So what are you arguing for? ...MORE global warming then?" - UbVonTard/ParkerTard

Do you intend to remain an idiot for the rest of your life ParkerTard/UbVonTard?
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012

"If cleaning the air causes warming, and the air was filthy with coal dust in the 1800s and early 1900s, then all warming in the 20th century could be because of cleaner air."


I see VD has trouble with logic.

This paper clearly claims that cleaning the air = warming.

This paper attempts to misdirect people into thinking only one place in the world has dirty air. Very false.

This paper attempts to misdirect people into thinking the air only got dirty in 1930. Very false.

If you avoid the misdirection then the obvious conclusion is that warming has occurred all over the world because the air was cleaner than it was in the past.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012
More global warming will produce more of the climate variability that I have cited as being a bad thing for food production.


Good thing the natural warming stopped in 1998.

Unfortunately VD is wrong as usual.

Cooling kills crops. USAD says:

EUROPE: Cold Weather Threatens Winter Crops

- Increasingly cold weather threatens exposed winter crops in northern Europe. The greatest threat for freeze damage is to northern Frances durum wheat as well as wheat and rapeseed in northeast Germany and northwest Poland."

http://www.agweb...._europe/
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012
Did anyone notice that cleaning the air supposedly warmed the eastern US by the amount that they previously claimed was caused by CO2?

Is anyone dumb enough to think similar warming has not taken place all over the world?

Is it not obvious that the .7C of warming from 1990 (the papers claim) could not have been caused by CO2 ... it was caused by more sunshine reaching the earth.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
UbVonTard/ParkerTard has lost the argument so badly he now resorts to selecting temperature series at random. Anything, as long as it supports their dishonest Conservative ideology.

"Why is it missing 2011 data? Try this one:" - UbVonTard/ParkerTard

But UbVonTard's selection does show one thing. That MSU data on the lower atmosphere is highly contaminated with emissions from upper layers of the atmosphere. MSU's attempt to measure the temperature of the lower layer of the atmosphere by looking through the upper layers and trying to computationally remove them is mostly a failure.

Ground based thermometers do a better job, and hat is why only fools use MSU.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 28, 2012
After proclaiming that icreased weather variability does not increase crop failure, UbVonTard/ParkerTard posts the following title and link.

"EUROPE: Cold Weather Threatens Winter Crops" - ParkerTard/UbVonTard

But warm weather extremes? UbVonTard/ParkerTard has claimed that they produce bumper crops.

Argentine Corn Farmers Prepare for Heatwave as Crops Shrivel

http://www.bloomb...vel.html

PARIS--More intense heat waves due to global warming could diminish wheat crop yields around the world through premature aging, according to a study published Sunday in Nature Climate Change.

http://www.chinap...aves.htm

Russian heat wave ravages crops

http://www.theglo...1677348/

Heat Wave, Drought Create 'Grim' Crop Yields for Farmers in Plains, South
http://video.pbs....0648694/
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
"It's the moon men. Clearly." - VD

"So this is your idea of a response" - UbVonTard/ParkerTard

It is all the response you continual stream of lies, deliberate misrepresentation and idiocy warrants.

"VDtard thinks camel farts cause global cooling!" - UbVonTard/ParkerTard

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar. UbVonTard/ParkerTard provides a perfect example of that observation.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
Looks like a warming trend to me.

http://www.woodfo....5/trend

"Oopsie. It looks like global warming stalled out more than 10 years ago!"

But then 10 years is a record of weather, not Climate.

Poor UbVonTard/ParkerTard. His mental illness causes him to believe that chronic misrepresentation of the data has strengthened his case when in fact it has just resulted in his public humiliation.

His tin foil cap just isn't working.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
UbVonTard/ParkerTard is absolutely right. If a heatwave followed by a killing frost averages out to no temperature change at all then crop yields will be identical to having perfect growing conditions.

"Moron. It can go either way. Sometimes, unusual weather brings bumper harvests!" - UbVonTard/ParkerTard

Yup. There have been instances where physical brain injury through gunshot or accidental piercing the skull has resulted in the improvement of brain function. So being shot in the head can to either way.

You should try it. It might cure your mental illness.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
Ah, from the scientifically illiterate mind of a simpleton.

"So global warming causes frost now?" - UbVontard/ParkerTard

Meanwhile...

Springtime Frost Killing Crops at Orchards, Vineyards
http://www.nbc15....705.html

Prairie frost is killing crops
http://www.thewea...a_110910

WINE WORRIES: Frost could kill grape crops
http://article.wn...e_crops/

Fruit frost damage update April 15 2012.wmv
http://www.youtub...xnXZ7t6c

Last week's cold snap hit some berry farmers with a crop-damaging frost.

A high mountain blueberry orchard in Fairview lost about 30 percent of the blooms that turn into fruit.

http://www.wlos.c...98.shtml
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
Kentucky Wheat: Frost Damage More Apparent Now

http://agfax.com/...rent-now

Frost 2012 damage to blackberry crop
http://teamrubus....its.html

Farmers report tart cherry frost damage
http://www.woodtv...t-damage

Winter Wheat Frost Damage
http://www.hoosie...-damage/

Grim reports coming in of tart cherry frost damage
http://www.abc12....t-damage

Frost Damage
http://www.degroo...p;id=385

Frosts damage up to 90 percent of blueberry crops in some areas

http://www.wndu.c...875.html

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
Champagne crop badly damaged by frost

http://www.decant...by-frost

Frost Damage to Apple Flowers

http://blog.lib.u...ers.html

Assessing Winter Wheat Damage after an Early Spring Freeze
http://cropwatch....=4783084

The recent cold snap seems to have taken its toll on some of Iowa's fruit crops. Experts at Iowa State University say that two nights of freezing temperatures have caused damage to fruit blossoms at their horticultural research centre.

http://www.freshp...id=95198
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 28, 2012

I see VD has trouble with logic. And wants to change the subject because of the damage it does to the cult.


This paper clearly claims that cleaning the air = warming.

This paper attempts to misdirect people into thinking only one place in the world has dirty air. Very false.

This paper attempts to misdirect people into thinking the air only got dirty in 1930. Very false.

If you avoid the misdirection then the obvious conclusion is that warming has occurred all over the world because the air was cleaner than it was in the past.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
"Tenn. strawberry crop looks to be best in years"

Oh really?

Half of Tenn. farmers strawberry crop lost to frost.
http://www.fox17....05.shtml

USDA Designates 3 Counties in Florida as Primary Natural Disaster Areas
http://ag-er.blog...ida.html

At Scott's Strawberry Farm in Bedford County, they're losing bushels of strawberries every night to the frost.

http://www2.newsa...1869070/

Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 28, 2012
Correct.

"NOAA says Ohio Valley temperatures bottomed out in 1980 and started to rise." - ParkerTard

Well done Tard Boy.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
The interesting thing about science is that data and it's analysis when performed competently then it can't be faked.

"I think this whole paper is a fake designed explain the cooling that gradually started in the 20s and 30s" - ParkerTard/UbVonTard

You are of course free to do your own "compentent analysis".

However, since you have proven to be a congenital liar, and generally incompetent. It is doubtful you have the capacity to do so.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012

NOAA says Ohio Valley temperatures bottomed out in 1980 and started to rise.

Why? The air was still filthy in 1990.

http://epa.gov/ca...8991.gif

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012
The interesting thing about science is that data and it's analysis when performed competently then it can't be faked.


Nonsense.

"Conclusions This study reports evidence consistent with the deliberate fraud hypothesis. The results suggest that papers retracted because of data fabrication or falsification represent a calculated effort to deceive. It is inferred that such behaviour is neither naïve, feckless nor inadvertent."

http://jme.bmj.co...abstract

Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 28, 2012
No, it was a statement of trust.

You clearly don't know the difference.

"This is nothing more than an appeal to authority." - UbVonTard

Your chronic misuse of the nonsense quotes spouting mindless opinions on sites such as that run by Anthony Watts is what? Appeal to non-authority?

How about your appeal to Wood for Trees as an authority?

Or your appeal to a Tenn. newspaper claiming a bumper crop in strawberries... An appeal to authority?

Do you intend to remain a moron for the rest of your life?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
ParkerTard prevents as evidence that science is fraud evidence that fraud in science is caught and expunged.

"This study reports evidence consistent with the deliberate fraud hypothesis. The results suggest that papers retracted because of data fabrication or falsification represent a calculated effort to deceive." - ParkerTard

Perhaps mentally ill Parker Tard will next like to prove that 1 1 = 3 by showing that 1 1 = 2.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
"Why? The air was still filthy in 1990." - ParkerTard

But relatively more filthy in the decades earlier.

The real question is why in the 1940's through 1990's did Conservatives like ParkerTard insist that cleaning the air was a bad and unnecessary proposition, as they continue to do today....

"EPA, Clean Air Act Facing Opposition" - http://www.inthes...osition/

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
Poor UbVonTard is using coal power plant counts from 2012 to infer air pollution sources in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, and 70's.

Is it possible to get dumber than that?

"Colorado (unaffected) has 15. Wyoming has 10. North Dakota has 10. Why aren't they similarly affected?" - UbVonTard

In addition, Coal Powered power plants have this nice little design feature to thwart NIMBY pollution complaints. It's called tall smokestacks.

Injecting pollutants higher in the atmosphere means that they move farther with the prevailing winds before they cause ground problems.

Now, where oh where do those prevailing winds blow pollution from Colorado? Well, it's toward Michigan of course, along a path that constitutes part of the region the article in question claims was cooled by particulate pollution from coal burning power plants.

Somehow UbVonTard/ParkerTard manages to confuse himself with this.

One wonders how it is possible. I guess it is possible when in a denialist delusional state.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012
"Why? The air was still filthy in 1990." - ParkerTheBrilliant

But relatively more filthy in the decades earlier.


If that was so, why the cooling all the way to 1980?

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012
ParkerThe Brilliant presents as evidence that science is full of frauds


VD babbles incoherently denying the obvious.

"In October 2011, for example, the journal Nature reported that published retractions had increased tenfold over the past decade, while the number of published papers had increased by just 44 percent."

http://www.nytime...nted=all

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012
A much smarter person is using coal power plant counts from 2012 to infer air pollution sources in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, and 70's."


Don't forget the 80s and 90s and 00s.

"From 1990 to 2009, the net capacity of the U.S. coal-fired power plant fleet remained virtually unchanged, increasing by only 7 Gigawatts (MW) or 2.5% during the entire 17-year period. The output of these plants increased from 1990 to 2007 before falling in 2009. This means that although the existing fleet was not growing in size,"

http://www.source...l_Plants

Using modern numbers is not a problem.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
Because before 1990 includes before 1980 up to 1980.

"If that was so, why the cooling all the way to 1980?" - ParkerTard

Is it possible that ParkerTard is the only person on earth who can't figure that out?

Is he just trying to raise stupidity to one of the fine arts?

What is his motivation for posting to a science site?

You decide.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 28, 2012
Because before 1990 includes before 1980 up to 1980.


If you had read the article, you would know they allege the 1990 extension to the clean air act made a big difference.

But in fact 1980 was the pivot year.

And then 1998 was a pivot year in the opposite direction. The 1990 clean extensions did not prevent cooling after 1998.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
"A much smarter person is using coal power plant counts from 2012 to infer air pollution sources in the 1940's, 50's, 60's, and 70's." - VD

"Don't forget the 80s and 90s and 00s." - ParkerTard/UbVonTard
"Using modern numbers is not a problem." - ParkerTard

Really? Your statement can only be true if electric power consumption and therefore generation hadn't increased since the 1940's 50's and 60's.

And your assumption appears to be a lie.

http://casafoodsh...x791.jpg
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
In terms of sulfate emissions, and emissions of nitrogen oxides it certainly did.

"If you had read the article, you would know they allege the 1990 extension to the clean air act made a big difference." - ParkerTard

What you provided was your incredulous assertion that the air in 1990 was "dirty".

Where you fail is in a comparison of the "dirty" 1990 air in comparison with the "dirty" 1975-1980 air.

You then compound your failure by claiming that current generator counts can be used to estimate past emissions, contrary to reason.

Your entire response is just Kook Tard Nonsense that now doubt is the result of your mental disease.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 28, 2012
And again the question remains. Since the 1980's clean air act did a magnificent job of cleaning American Air, (more is needed), why did Republicans oppose it and all previous and subsequent regulations designed to clean the air?

Clearly they must be traitors who place corporate interests above the interests of the American people.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 28, 2012
Farmers report tart cherry frost damage
One cherry farmer reports at least 80% loss

http://www.woodtv...t-damage

Grim reports of tart cherry frost damage
SUTTONS BAY TOWNSHIP Northern Michigans tart cherry growers are starting to report serious damage from a hard freeze that followed a late-winter heat wave.

http://www.battle...t-damage

Fruit frost damage update April 15 2012.wmv

http://www.youtub...xnXZ7t6c

"Imaginary frozen cherry blossoms, again?... VDtard is a lying climate 'bot and he's exposed as such, again." - UbVonTard

One has to wonder what mental damage it takes for UbVonTard/ParkerTard to deny the reality of multiple news reports and eyewitness accounts.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2012
VDtard is so stupid, he doesn't realize he's now arguing my side!

As I've been saying all along, cold is bad for agriculture. A warm world is a more hospitable world.

Thanks for the confirmation, VDtard!

Estevan57
2.5 / 5 (13) Apr 29, 2012
So, according to you he must be stupid to argue your side?
In case you hadn't noticed extremes of temperature both warm and cold are bad for agriculture. Do you need data?
Smashin_Z_1885
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
What a load of BS science we have here! 1. Review the extreme Particulate pollution from the late 1800s, or even, the MORE extreme particulate pollution from ancient times when range fires and forest fires raged unchecked for months, even years, and then get back to me with ideas about "cold pools". Number 2. Please explain how the data used to calculate this recent "cold pool" is not corrupted by thousands of other variables. For example, the data can also be interpreted as a cyclic, regional cooling effect as a result of (insert hypothesis here). You can basically construct any model you wish, as the variables involved are so numerous, it is Impossible to accurately calculate or surmise a true cause. Number 3. Global average temperatures can, indeed, be measured, and in fact, it is true, not an assumption, that recent global temps are climbing. However, ASSUMING a cause is absurd. Earth's warming is a result of a continuation of warming up from the last ice age.
Smashin_Z_1885
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
And my arguments and assumptions DO NOT include the massive data set that MUST be calculated as a result of increased Volcanism within the past 130 years or so. This data absolutely must be considered if one is going to claim "human created global warming". And yes, Volcanic particulate air pollution IS sulfur based as well. Knowing that one volcanic eruption produces millions of times more particulate matter than 1 century of industrial burning of coal or fossil fuels, we can easily assume, even without equations, that the above article is Absurdity and Idiocy of the highest order, as we see no regional "Cold Pool" effects of Volcanic origin. In fact, when volcanoes erupt, the results are a more globally dispersed cooling effect. Why? Because weather and the oceans distribute the energy fairly evenly around the planet ( a well-known scientific fact by the way). So do NOT believe everything you read people, especially on the internet. Good Day.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 29, 2012
In case you hadn't noticed extremes of temperature both warm and cold are bad for agriculture. Do you need data?


Really ... I'm pretty sure you can grow lots of food in the tropics, but growing food in Antarctica is quite difficult.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 29, 2012
And again the question remains. Since the 1980's clean air act


What a moron.

1970. Nixon was President.

Both sides voted for it.

"The 1970 Clean Air Act, passed by a bipartisan majority in Congress and signed into law by President Richard Nixon, made air quality a national responsibility, established an innovative nationwide standard-setting framework, and set strict deadlines for compliance."

http://cleartheai...ID=60844

The winter of 1979 was the coldest in US history. So much for cleaner air ...
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 29, 2012
When you see a post from Parker Tard you pretty much are guaranteed that he is lying.

Case in point..

Originally Parker Tard stated the following.

"If you had read the article, you would know they allege the 1990 extension to the clean air act made a big difference." - ParkerTard

Then when I responded to the 1990 legislation Parker Tard responds with.

"The 1970 Clean Air Act, passed by a bipartisan majority in Congress and signed into law by President Richard Nixon" - Parker Tard

Finally Parker Tard lies about the history of the clean air act.

The Clean Air Act is a United States federal law designed to control air pollution on a national level. It requires the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to develop and enforce regulations to protect the general public from exposure to airborne contaminants that are known to be hazardous to human health. The 1963 Act established a basic research program, which was expanded in 1967. The major amendments to the law, requiring regulatory.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 29, 2012
Who has always opposed the clean air act?

"April 7, 2011 - The U.S. House of Representatives today voted 255-172 in favor of rescinding the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's authority under the Clean Air Act to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.

The bill, H.R. 910, the Energy Tax Prevention Act of 2011, was coauthored by House Energy and Commerce Committee Chair Congressman Fred Upton, a Michigan Republican."

http://www.ens-ne...094.html

In opposition to the Clean Air Act of 1970, the American Automobile Manufacturers Association cried that if air quality standards in the bill became law "manufacturers would be forced to shut down" During the debate over the 1990 Clean Air Act, auto industry officials claimed that further reducing auto emissions "is not feasible or necessary and that congressional dictates to do so would be financially ruinous.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 29, 2012
We know that when palm trees were growing in the arctic, what are now known as the tropics were vast deserts devoid of life.

What are now the temperate zones were largely deserts as well.

"I'm pretty sure you can grow lots of food in the tropics" - ParkerTard

GCM runs with doubled CO2 (2xCO2) indicate significant increases in temperature and changes in precipitation in Mexico. Mexico is the 13th largest contributor to global greenhouse gases, producing 1.4% of the total net emissions (World Resources Institute, 1990). For Mexico, continually striving to support a growing population with an agricultural system that relies on relatively low and variable rainfall, any warmer, drier conditions could bring nutritional and economic disaster. More than one-third of Mexico's rapidly growing population works in agriculture, a sector whose prosperity is critical to the nation's debt-burdened economy. Although only one-fifth of Mexico's cropland is irrigated, this area accounts for half
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 29, 2012
this area accounts for half the value of the country's agricultural production, including many export crops. Many irrigation districts rely on small reservoirs or wells, which deplete rapidly in dry years. The remaining rain-red cropland supports many subsistence farmers and provides much of the domestic food supply. Frequent droughts already reduce harvests and increase hunger and poverty in much of Mexico

http://www.ciesin...39b.html

UbVonTard/ParkerTard insists that vast quantities of corn will be grown on the bare rock of the Canadian shield.

The mentally ill often believe many unreal things.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 29, 2012
"A warm world is a more hospitable world." - UbVonTard

"Russian heat wave kills fish, crops"

Fish breeders in central Russia have lost much of their sturgeon and trout to a scorching heat wave that continued Saturday.

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

Russia Heat Wave May Kill 15,000, Shave $15 Billion of GDP

http://www.bloomb...ave.html

Great Russian Heat Wave of 2010 Caused 11,000 Deaths in Moscow Alone

http://www.wwfblo...ow-alone

European heatwave caused 35,000 deaths

http://www.newsci...ths.html

Argentine Corn Farmers Prepare for Heatwave as Crops Shrivel

http://www.bloomb...vel.html

Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 29, 2012

Heatwave, Drought Threaten Crops, Livelihoods Across U.S.

http://www.ibtime...ni-a.htm

Heat Wave Destroys Wheat Crop

http://www.newslo...eat-crop

Corn Gains as Heat Wave May Reduce Crop Yields in the U.S., Biggest Grower

http://www.bloomb...lds.html

Australia suffers worst drought in 1,000 years
Depleted reservoirs, failed crops and arid farmland spark global warming tussle

http://www.guardi....drought

Drought punishes Brazil soy crop
http://www.reuter...20120410

South American drought spreads to Brazil
http://theextinct...-brazil/
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 29, 2012
It is easy to expose ParkerTard/UbVonTard's latest lie.

The 1912 United States cold wave (also called 1912 cold air outbreak) remains one of the coldest winters yet to occur over the northern United States. It started in December 1911 and continued into late February 1912.

http://en.wikiped...old_wave

"The winter of 1979 was the coldest in US history. So much for cleaner air " - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. He just can't prevent himself from lying, even if his lie is about 1 meaningless year.

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 29, 2012
So, according to you he must be stupid to argue your side?
Touche'!

In case you hadn't noticed extremes of temperature both warm and cold are bad for agriculture. Do you need data?
Actually, cold is the worse. Heat generally doesn't kill crops, unless it's accompanied with drought.

A case in point:

In California's Central Valley, it regularly reaches temperatures above 105' in the summer, yet it remains one of the richest agricultural regions in the world.

"The Central Valley is one of the world's most productive agricultural regions. On less than 1 percent of the total farmland in the United States, the Central Valley produces 8 percent of the nations agricultural output by value."

"Summer daytime temperatures approach 100 °F (38 °C), and common heat waves might bring temperatures exceeding 115 °F (46 °C)."

Heat = good
Cold = bad
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
The edit function isn't working correctly. Here's the link concerning Calaifornia's Central Valley:

http://en.wikiped...ifornia)
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
What a load of BS science we have here!

...one volcanic eruption produces millions of times more particulate matter than 1 century of industrial burning of coal or fossil fuels, we can easily assume, even without equations, that the above article is Absurdity and Idiocy of the highest order, as we see no regional "Cold Pool" effects of Volcanic origin....
Now THAT'S an example of excellent critical thinking skills.

Way to go Smashin_Z_1885!

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) Apr 29, 2012

The 1912 United States cold wave (also called 1912 cold air outbreak) remains one of the coldest winters


NOAA/NCDC say 1979.

http://www.worldc...century/

"perhaps even as far back as the all-time back-to-back coldest winters of 1977-78 and 1978-79"
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
We know that when palm trees were growing in the arctic, what are now known as the tropics were vast deserts devoid of life.

What are now the temperate zones were largely deserts as well.
You're lying. A warm world is a greener world. Here's how it looked when the poles wee ice free:

http://www.theres...akey.jpg

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
Russia Heat Wave May Kill 15,000...
A tragedy to be sure, but you're mixing natural weather variations with climate. More recently, Russia's had a terrible freeze.

"Main Culprit of Deadly Russian Heat Wave? Natural Variability"

http://www.agu.or...10.shtml

Analysis of forced model simulations indicates that neither human influences nor other slowly evolving ocean boundary conditions contributed substantially to the magnitude of this heat wave. They also provide evidence that such an intense event could be produced through natural variability alone.

http://www.agu.or...82.shtml

If it was normally warm in Russia, they'd be acclimated and it'd be no big deal (like sunny California).

European heatwave caused 35,000 deaths
Another tragedy, but MILLIONS died when the medieval warm period ended:

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

A warm world is a more hospitable world.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.6 / 5 (40) Apr 29, 2012
Heat bad for wheat

http://www.telegr...ZnrPY8nx

"Heat generally doesn't kill crops." - UbVonTard

Extreme heat hurts wheat yields as world warms: study

http://www.reuter...20120129

Heat, not rainfall, affecting crop yields the most

http://fsi.stanfo...ews/3165

Crop scientists now fret about heat not just water

http://www.reuter...20111024
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Apr 29, 2012
World Climate Report (WCR) is a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm"[1] run by global warming skeptic, Patrick J. Michaels.

"perhaps even as far back as the all-time back-to-back coldest winters of 1977-78 and 1978-79" - WorldClimateReport

Using a known liar as a source of information is not a good plan of action ParkerTard/UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (39) Apr 29, 2012
Using UbVonTard's logic here is proof that man lived withe the dinosaurs.

http://www.youtub...3X66BFd8

"You're lying. A warm world is a greener world." - UbVonTard

And Tard boy even has a painting of the earth taken from a nonsense denialist blog site to prove it.

UbVonTard is of course mentally ill.

Desertification and Global Warming: Common Action for Common Challenges
http://www.tiempo...0818.htm

climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts. It has been suggested that higher latitudes Siberia, for example may become productive due to global warming, but the soil in Arctic and bordering territories is very poor, and the amount of sunlight reaching the ground in summer will not change because it is governed by the tilt of the earth.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
World Climate Report (WCR) is a blog published by New Hope Environmental Services, "an advocacy science consulting firm"[1] run by global warming skeptic, Patrick J. Michaels.

"perhaps even as far back as the all-time back-to-back coldest winters of 1977-78 and 1978-79" - WorldClimateReport

Using someone with an IQ above VD's 99IQ makes him look like a bigger idiot than usual.


I agree.

Coldest Winter:

http://www.wunder...num=2026
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 29, 2012
climate change is likely to disrupt those supplies through floods and droughts.


and snow and not snow

and cold and not cold

and black and not black

You cult members are so gullible.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2012
Heat bad for wheat
Pish posh. you must think farmers are dumber than dirt. On the contrary...

Your articles mostly just said heat makes wheat age(grow) faster. Faster growth increases the likelihood of multiple sowings - thereby increasing your annual yield.

And folks are breeding temperature tolerant wheat anyway.

And even if it gets too hot to grow wheat, you simply switch to corn or some other temperature tolerant crop, and move your wheat crop to a cooler climate (perhaps a place it couldn't successfully grow now) thus substantially increasing your total yield.

Besides, global warming has stalled out. So it's all moot anyway.

heat = good
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 29, 2012
No. I think that you are dumber than dirt.

"Pish posh. you must think farmers are dumber than dirt." - UbVonTard

I think that extreme heat is damaging to plants.

I posted a half dozen links to that effect above.

Clearly you weren't smart enough to read them.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 29, 2012
None of the links said anything remotely like that.

"Your articles mostly just said heat makes wheat age(grow) faster." - UbVonTard

But if we must...

Technical solutions to prevent heat stress induced crop growth reduction for three climatic regions in Mexico

http://library.wu...s/374263

Heat-induced growth retardation and attempts at its prevention in barley and wheat coleoptiles

http://journals.c...=4585916

Be Aware of Heat Stress This Summer

http://www.canadi...ress.htm

Heat Stress in Dairy Cows

http://www.cvmbs....ay03.pdf
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 29, 2012
Preventing heat stress and fruit sunburn on apple and pear trees

http://www.omafra...ound.htm

Effects of higher day and night temperatures on growth and yields of some crop plants

http://www.fao.or...3e08.htm

Extreme temperature effects on crops

http://www.fao.or...3e08.htm#extreme temperature effects on crops
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 29, 2012
"And even if it gets too hot to grow wheat, you simply switch to corn" - UbVonTard

Drought and Heat Stress Effects on Corn Pollination

http://www.agry.p...n-07.htm

Midwest corn suffers from heat stress, especially late-planted corn

http://farmindust...ted-corn

Summer Heat and Corn Yields

http://seekingalp...n-yields

Heat Hurts Corn Crop

http://www.wthitv...orn-crop
Vendicar_Decarian
0.5 / 5 (39) Apr 29, 2012
You mean like your moronic claim that you would grow corn and wheat on the barren rock of the Canadian Shield.

"move your wheat crop to a cooler climate" - UbVonTard

Ahahahahah....... Poor ParkerTard/UbVonTard.

How do you manage to muster enough brain power to lift a spoon to your mouth?

Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Apr 29, 2012
Actually, cold is the worse. Heat generally doesn't kill crops, unless it's accompanied with drought.
Your right of course, plants tend to tolerate heat better than they do cold. However, that is a really broad statement; heat stress to pants can cause a reduced crop size, increased plant disease and insect problems. Water lose from evaporation (huge issue for those that irrigate) is probably an even bigger problem. Anyway the bottom line for the Denier-crowd is you really don't want higher temperatures even if you think a degree C doesn't matter (actually more like several degrees C from super-conservative global warming models).

Uba; The arguement about a greener world, completely ignores all of the environmental damages and ramifications of the lack of polar ice. The lack of surface reflectance off the Polar Icecaps is considered one of the more dangerous feed back-mechanism of AGW theory. With the lower albedo of water, heat will be trapped even more so. Lots more!
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2012
Using Uba's logic here is proof that man lived withe the dinosaurs.
Naw, that's more your speed.

And Uba even has a painting of the earth taken from a nonsense denialist blog site to prove it.
What are you talking about? Just because I picked up the link from there doesn't mean that's where it originated. It's a Ron Blakey paleogeographc map.

Here's the original source:

http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/rcb7/

Desertification and Global Warming: Common Action for Common Challenges
This is so old I about fell of my dinosaur laughing Yaba-Daba Doo! No credible climatologist talks about global warming induced desertification anymore, except as regards land management.

Here's the top item found in a Google search for: global warming desertification 2012

http://www.youtub...PX3jhVlE

Notice the discussion at the end where they talk about the rivers flowing longer and the grasslands are doing well.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2012
I think that extreme heat is damaging to plants.

I posted a half dozen links to that effect above.
Ri-i-ight. So why is the biosphere is booming?

"...the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, fertilizing the biota and resulting in the increased green side effect."

http://scintilla....e/317102
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Apr 29, 2012
Heat-induced growth retardation and attempts at its prevention in barley and wheat coleoptiles
Blither blather. Weren't you just panicking because crops were dying from the cold? Make up your mind.

Overall, heat is good for crops. Wheat likes a cooler, temperate climate. This is why they can grow huge tracts of wheat in Canada, but not much corn.

A warmer earth provides more arable land. A warmer earth is more hospitable.

heat = good
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
You mean like your moronic claim that you would grow corn and wheat on the barren rock of the Canadian Shield.
Liar, I never said that. I said the soil could be easily modified to grow corn if the temperature and moisture content were correct.

"The Canadian Shield landscape includes bedrock uplands and valleys infilled with soil."

http://www.scienc...03001756

This article has some cool pictures of the soil in central Ontario:

http://www.omwmag...lsen.php

And here's a site describing the various soils of Canada:

http://www.soilso...ndex.php

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
Your right of course, plants tend to tolerate heat better than they do cold. However, that is a really broad statement; heat stress to plants can cause a reduced crop size, increased plant disease and insect problems.
All pale in comparison to frost damage.

Water lose from evaporation (huge issue for those that irrigate) is probably an even bigger problem.
Presumptuous. Just because it's hot doesn't mean it's dry.

Anyway the bottom line for the Denier-crowd is you really don't want higher temperatures even if you think a degree C doesn't matter.
I wouldn't presume to suppose man has that much influence on the climate. The past dozen years (give or take a few) demonstrate a decided disconnect between atmospheric CO2 and temperature.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 29, 2012
"What are you talking about? Just because I picked up the link from there doesn't mean that's where it originated. It's a Ron Blakey paleogeographc map." - UbVonTard

And all of Northern Africa was desert, as well as all of Southern Africa, and half of Australia, Most of Russia, and virtually all of Northern China... And of course all of the Middle East, and half of the Mediterranean nations.

And this is your vision of Paradise. Half of the globe a lifeless desert.

The Miocene had an average temperature of about 17.8 'C compared to modern temperatures of about 14.8'C

A temperature increase to around 17.8'C is projected with a continued rise of another 3'C following 2100 due to thermal inertia, even if CO2 emissions at 2100 are dropped to zero.

This will place global average temperatures at somewhere around 20'C which is much warmer than the Miocene era.

Cont.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
Uba; The arguement about a greener world, completely ignores all of the environmental damages and ramifications of the lack of polar ice. The lack of surface reflectance off the Polar Icecaps is considered one of the more dangerous feed back-mechanism of AGW theory. With the lower albedo of water, heat will be trapped even more so. Lots more.
I don't think we have to worry about that any time soon. Even so, the world has been ice free before. It's also been covered in ice. Life does much better in the former, rather than the latter.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 29, 2012
So temperatures will be more like they were in the Eocene, where deserts are expanded further and much of Europe is under water.

From your own source....

http://cpgeosyste...obes.jpg

You poor deluded Tard.
kaasinees
0.7 / 5 (25) Apr 29, 2012
http://www.youtub...j2_-co50

For uneducated people about climate watch thiss.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 29, 2012
Idiot your source of information on a blogger who calls itself "radioweather" posting on shashdot, who is reporting on a story he read in a business rag called the Financial Post.

You might as well be quoting someone talking about someone he saw talking about someone seen on Faux news who was jabbering about bigfoot.

"...the warming of the planet and the presence of CO2, fertilizing the biota and resulting in the increased green side effect." - UbVonTard.

Now real science tells us that there has been some minor and under-proportionate increase in plant growth due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. However all forest studies show this result to be temporary.

And in the Miocene grassland outcompeted forests and although grassland expanded, it did so at the expense of forested land and of course only in the absence of the expanded desert regions.

In addition ocean productivity was dramatically lower than it is today.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 29, 2012
And all of Northern Africa was desert, as well as all of Southern Africa, and half of Australia, Most of Russia, and virtually all of Northern China... And of course all of the Middle East, and half of the Mediterranean nations.

And this is your vision of Paradise. Half of the globe a lifeless desert.
Dude, what are you talking about?

The Miocene globe is much greener...

http://jan.ucc.na...moll.jpg

...than the current globe:

http://jan.ucc.na...moll.jpg

I mean just look at the difference in Australia alone!
It was much greener then.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 29, 2012
Life does best where it has evolved to be, and that is around the current temperature, and not on a largely desert planet that is 6'C hotter than today.

Good luck with your plan to grow corn on the barren rock of the Canadian shield.

"Life does much better in the former, rather than the latter." - UbVonTard

You poor deluded Tard.
kaasinees
0.5 / 5 (24) Apr 29, 2012
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 30, 2012
Why do you now dishonestly assert is panic, my posting several dozen reports of frost damaged crops - including cherries - in response to your dishonest claim that such damage was a figment of my imagination?

"Weren't you just panicking because crops were dying from the cold?" - UbVonTard

Is it your intent to hide your original lie with a new one?

Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (36) Apr 30, 2012
Yes, once you exclude the extensive desertification and the tens of millions of miles of lost coastline, and the flooding of virtually all of Europe.

"The Miocene globe is much greener..." - UbVonTard

Do you intend to remain a liar for the rest of your life UbVonTard/ParkerTard?
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
Idiot your source of information on a blogger who calls itself "radioweather" posting on shashdot, who is reporting on a story he read in a business rag called the Financial Post.

You might as well be quoting someone talking about someone he saw talking about someone seen on Faux news who was jabbering about bigfoot.
Really? You had reason to doubt?

Fine, here's a quote from, and a direct link to, the original source work:

"The somewhat surprising result is that overall global NPP increased by 6.2% during this period,with 25% of global vegetated area showing significant increases and only 7% showing decreasing trends."

http://secure.nts...2004.pdf

Now real science tells us that there has been some minor and under-proportionate increase in plant growth due to the increase in atmospheric CO2. However all forest studies show this result to be temporary.
Your turn. Provide references.

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 30, 2012
That is of course yet another one of your long list of lies that are by this time growing uncountable.

"I said the soil could be easily modified to grow corn" - UbVonTard

There is essentially soil on the Canadian shield. There is generally nothing to till unless you till a few inches deep and even there you will be tilling through broken stone.

You remind me of the lunatic pronouncements of one Hoover Institutions Conservative Tards who claimed that ozone depletion wasn't a problem because the entirety of Europe could be covered in a layer of sandwich wrap to protect it against exposure to UV. radiation.

This magnificent Tard took great pride in his design of "ear flaps" which automatically closed to prevent him from hearing reason.

He was very old at the time however, so we all assumed he was just growing senile.

You however appear to be much younger so mental illness is the only explanation.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
And in the Miocene grassland outcompeted forests and although grassland expanded, it did so at the expense of forested land and of course only in the absence of the expanded desert regions.
References?

In addition ocean productivity was dramatically lower than it is today.
References?

Why do you now dishonestly assert is panic, my posting several dozen reports of frost damaged crops - including cherries - in response to your dishonest claim that such damage was a figment of my imagination?
You did lie at the time. You just got lucky that a hard and sustained frost hit AFTER you lied.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
Yes, once you exclude the extensive desertification
What extensive desertification? The deserts are smaller in the Miocene than now.

and the tens of millions of miles of lost coastline, and the flooding of virtually all of Europe.
You're comparing apples and oranges. The continents were shaped differently then.

Besides, just look at the amazing amounts of arable (green) land in North America during the Miocene.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (36) Apr 30, 2012
Yup, overall biological productivity has increased slightly as CO2 levels have increased. The increase is under-proportionate to the increase in CO2 level, and even if we consider it to be strictly proportional, a return to temperatures that produced a largely desert planet in the past would increase NPP by (much) less than 30 percent.

In other words NPP would fall due to increases in desertification and land loss due to rising sea levels.

"The somewhat surprising result is that overall global NPP increased by 6.2% during this period,with 25% of global vegetated area showing significant increases and only 7% showing decreasing trends."" - UbVonTard

I'm not entirely sure that your drive to improve crop yields in some limited areas of the globe by much less than 30% at the expense of flooding all of Europe is something the Europeans will agree to.

You poor, innumerate Tard.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (37) Apr 30, 2012
Your own source shows them to be larger.

"The deserts are smaller in the Miocene than now." - UbVonTard

And as was indicated before, unless steps are immediately taken to reduce CO2 emissions temperatures will exceed the Eocene and move into the Eocene range.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations will increase the global temperature by about 3'C immediately, but guarantee another 3'C rise over the decades that follow even if CO2 emissions drop to zero.

This is primarily due to the large thermal inertia of the oceans.

Do these facts help cure your mental disease?

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
There is essentially (no) soil on the Canadian shield. There is generally nothing to till unless you till a few inches deep and even there you will be tilling through broken stone.
Having trouble with the references there again VDtard 'bot? I've shown an abundance of soils on the Canadian shield.

You however appear to be much younger
Thank you, but I've been around the block a few times.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (36) Apr 30, 2012
It is common knowledge.

"References?" - UbVonTard

Go read a book.

"You did lie at the time." - UbVonTard

Do you have any evidence to backup your new dishonest assertion?

Nope.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 30, 2012
"I've shown an abundance of soils on the Canadian shield." - UbVonTard

Yes, in some areas glaciation dropped granite based till rather than limestone based till. It is still till and unsuitable for growing wheat or corn or any other crop, contrary to your former Lunatic pronouncements.

You have a mental disorder UbVontard. Get help.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
Yup, overall biological productivity has increased slightly as CO2 levels have increased.
Slightly? More like, WOWZA!

The increase is under-proportionate to the increase in CO2 level, and even if we consider it to be strictly proportional, a return to temperatures that produced a largely desert planet in the past would increase NPP by (much) less than 30 percent.

In other words NPP would fall due to increases in desertification and land loss due to rising sea levels.
I call bull-oney. Provide references.

I'm not entirely sure that your drive to improve crop yields in some limited areas of the globe by much less than 30% at the expense of flooding all of Europe is something the Europeans will agree to.
More bull-oney.

Here's a question: How many gigatons of vegetation is represented by the 6.2% increase, verses how much CO2 was released during the comparison period?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 30, 2012
No. Your mental illness is undoubted.

"Really? You had reason to doubt?" - UbVonTard

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
Your own source shows them to be larger.
Uh, maybe you're confusing the two?

And as was indicated before, unless steps are immediately taken to reduce CO2 emissions temperatures will exceed the Eocene and move into the Eocene range.

A doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentrations will increase the global temperature by about 3'C immediately, but guarantee another 3'C rise over the decades that follow even if CO2 emissions drop to zero.

This is primarily due to the large thermal inertia of the oceans.
Well then, you'd better tell that to the temperature, 'cause it aint budged in more than a decade:

http://woodfortre...12/trend
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 30, 2012
No. You are simply lying.

"Uh, maybe you're confusing the two?" - UbVonTard

Where is most of North Africa on your Miocene map? What happened to Europe?

"Well then, you'd better tell that to the temperature, 'cause it aint budged in more than a decade:" - UbVonTard

Which indicates anything between a possible upward trend of .25'C to a downward trend of -.25'C.

You have been repeatedly told this, and yet you persist in lying about there being no trend.

Do you intend to remain a liar for the rest of your life?
Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 30, 2012
6.2% is barely significant.

Only the truly mentally ill would say "wow".

"Slightly? More like, WOWZA!" - UbVonTard

"How many gigatons of vegetation is represented by the 6.2% increase" - UbVonTard

Why produce such a dishonest comparison when the real comparison should be gigatonnes of Carbon into the atmosphere vs Gigatonnes of carbon sequestered by plants.

It is about 20% of emissions.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
It is common knowledge.

"References?" - Uba

Go read a book.
Ah, so you admit you're lying. Good show that.

"You did lie at the time." - Uba

Do you have any evidence to backup your assertion?
Yes, I do.

Your original post is from Mar 31, 2012.

http://phys.org/n...ems.html

Your frost references are dated April 15, 2012 and April 22, 2012 (more than two weeks later).

http://phys.org/n...tes.html

Vendicar_Decarian
0.3 / 5 (37) Apr 30, 2012
You haven't read any provided to you so far. Why would I expect you to start now?

"I call bull-oney. Provide references." - UbVonTard

http://www.spring...847026h/

http://www.int-re.../p51-63/

http://www.cabdir...832.html

http://www.mendel...ransect/

http://www.ipgp.f...ture.pdf

http://geology.ge...43.short
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
No. You are simply lying.
Naw, it's well established you're the one lying.

Where is most of North Africa on your Miocene map?
It's called the Sahara. It's still there.

What happened to Europe?
Parts of it hadn't emerged, some parts are much higher (Scandinavia is a part of Europe, didn't you know?).

"Well then, you'd better tell that to the temperature, 'cause it aint budged in more than a decade:" - Uba


Which indicates anything between a possible upward trend of .25'C to a downward trend of -.25'C.
Essentially, zero.

You have been repeatedly told this, and yet you persist in lying about there being no trend.
Because there's no trend. The temperature trend is flat.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Apr 30, 2012
6.2% is barely significant.
Fine then. Give me 6.2% of your country's GDP. I'm sure no one will miss it.

"How many gigatons of vegetation is represented by the 6.2% increase" - Uba


Why produce such a dishonest comparison when the real comparison should be gigatonnes of Carbon into the atmosphere vs Gigatonnes of carbon sequestered by plants.
Nope, 'cause those plants hold in other greenhouse gasses too.

It is about 20% of emissions.
Really? I can do that too.

It's about 90% of emissions.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
You haven't read any provided to you so far. Why would I expect you to start now?

"I call bull-oney. Provide references." - Uba
First reference from February 7, 2000.
Old. Essentially an appeal for funding.

Second from December 17, 1998.
Old. Says desertification is a land management issue.

Book from 1996.
Too old to be relevant.

Paper from Novemeber 3, 1997.
Old and speculative. Full of if's, maybe's, and mights.

A paper from April 24, 1997.
Old. Says some places were wetter, some dryer.

A paper from September 12, 2001.
Old. About a specific desert which exists today.

Obviously, you did nothing more than a keyword search.

I called bull-oney and I was right. You got nuthin' VDtard.

NotParker
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 30, 2012
Did you know that 14 states have been cooling (or there has been no change) in temperature since 1895?

Did any of the cult members tell you?

http://sunshineho...part-1b/
davhaywood
1 / 5 (1) Apr 30, 2012
How convenient that these "scientists" gain insight into the nuance of a complex phenomenon the more they research it. It is as if the scientific method was "designed" to constantly test and verify hypotheses and theories based on observations and experiments. Why can't they just come up with one static theory which explains everything and is never subject to revision? That would be much more convincing.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 30, 2012

Did you know that the U.S. constitutes less than 2 percent of the global surface area, and those 14 states a vastly smaller global fraction?

The smaller the scale the greater the variance from the norm.

"Did you know that 14 states have been cooling (or there has been no change) in temperature since 1895?" - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 30, 2012
Lets see 6.2 percent of your brain cells on a plate. A microscope would be needed to see them.

"Give me 6.2% of your country's GDP. I'm sure no one will miss it." - UbVonTARD

A 6.2 percent rise in plant growth can barely be measured.

"Nope, 'cause those plants hold in other greenhouse gasses too." - UbVonTard

Quite the contrary. Plants are a major source of water vapour due to their transpiration and large leaf surface area.

Why oh Tard of Tards do you think it is humid in the tropics?

Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 30, 2012
Another lie from Tard Boy.

"Where is most of North Africa on your Miocene map?" - UbVonTard

In fact on your "map" a huge swath of northern Africa is under water, along with much of Europe.

But that is OK in your books becuase plant productivity is temporarily up 6.2 percent.

You are mentally ill UbVonTard/ParkerTard... Get help immediately.

NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Apr 30, 2012
Did you know that the U.S. constitutes less than 2 percent of the global surface area, and those 14 states a vastly smaller global fraction?


Did you know that "global" thermometers cover less than .000000001% of the land area, yet AGW cult members extrapolate the local temperatures to thousands of square miles ... except when they show cooling. Then they whine and snivel.

Other mays find the lack of CO2 warming signature interesting.

http://sunshineho...part-1a/

Just natural cycles.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
yet AGW cult members extrapolate the local temperatures to thousands of square miles

Speaking as an AGW CULT MEMBER (with hooded robe an everything evil like that), there is a reason why we extrapolate local temperatures to thousands of square miles. BECAUSE WE CAN.

You deniers and your denying religion, amazing.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 30, 2012
Poor innumerate ParkerTard.

The area covered is vastly smaller than that.

Even if there were a million thermometers making official measurements on earth, the projected surface area of the bottom of all those thermometers only adds up to around 7 square meters.

That is

0.00000000000016 percent of the earth's surface area.

Not

0.000000001 percent as you have claimed.

"Did you know that "global" thermometers cover less than .000000001% of the land area." - ParkerTard/UbVonTard

Poor Innumerate ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
0.4 / 5 (38) Apr 30, 2012
Actually I find it mindless.

"Other mays find the lack of CO2 warming signature interesting." - ParkerTard

Nothing but a non stop stream of childish cherry picking from Tard Boy.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
A 6.2 percent rise in plant growth can barely be measured.
Try telling that to a farmer. A 6.2 increase in vegetation can make the difference between living high, and bankruptcy.

"Much of the 6 percent increase in the western Cornbelt share is due to North Dakota."

http://www.farmga...xpansion

"...the presence of irrigation management transfer is associated with a 2-6 percent increase in farm yields."

http://water.worl...lippines

Obviously, farmers are quite concerned with 6% or less increases in yield, making you out to be quite the liar (again).

Quite the contrary. Plants are a major source of water vapour due to their transpiration and large leaf surface area.
The water resource has to be there to begin with. It's not like you can plant a zilion shrubs in a desert and instantly get a tropical rain forest.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
In fact on your "map" a huge swath of northern Africa is under water, along with much of Europe.
What don't you get about plate tectonics? Of course the continents were shaped a little differently 20 million years ago (duh!).

But that is OK in your books because plant productivity is temporarily up 6.2 percent.
Now you're mixing context. The recently reported 6.2% rise in vegetation has nothing to do with the Miocene period (d'oh!).

Get a clue, moron.
Howhot
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 30, 2012
@kaasinees; Occasionally there are real gems buried in all of the jibber that just needs repeating. That video was a great find. Simple and yet inspiring. If you have 15 minutes it worth watching.

http://www.youtub...j2_-co50
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) May 01, 2012

Did you know that "global" thermometers cover less than .000000001% of the land area


Did you know there is someone soooo stupiddd they claim that it IS NOT LESS THAN .000000001% ????

I think that tiny number applies to VDs IQ.

But back on topic:

Large parts of the USA are not warming.

You may find the lack of CO2 warming signature interesting.

http://sunshineho...part-1a/

Just natural cycles.
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (11) May 01, 2012
yet AGW cult members extrapolate the local temperatures to thousands of square miles

Speaking as an AGW CULT MEMBER (with hooded robe an everything evil like that), there is a reason why we extrapolate local temperatures to thousands of square miles. BECAUSE WE CAN.


There is a fascinating research being done looking into the Urban Heat Island Effect.

Even two thermometers within the same city can have temperatures that are very far apart.

http://hockeyscht...and.html
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (5) May 02, 2012
How you measure a heat island and account for it in computer models is pretty routine and well studied. It doesn't matter how many thermometers you want to bring into the mix, the more the better, but unless your looking for highly refined local weather, one thermometer reading for every 100square miles should be acceptable for a good climate change model. It depends on how refined you want to be.

Statistical methods are just as valid as any hard measurement in science. That is why I said; "BECAUSE WE CAN".