Warming turns tundra to forest

Jun 04, 2012
The northernmost foothills of the Polar Ural mountains on the southern Yamal Peninsula in West Siberia, Russia: willow thickets have a greyish metallic canopy and stand out in the forefront and background, located mostly in concave areas. Alder, with a dark green canopy, stands out clearly against both willow and the other tundra vegetation. Credit: BC Forbes.

(Phys.org) -- In just a few decades shrubs in the Arctic tundra have turned into trees as a result of the warming Arctic climate, creating patches of forest which, if replicated across the tundra, would significantly accelerate global warming.

Scientists from Finland and Oxford University investigated an area of around 100,000 km2, known as the northwestern Eurasian tundra, stretching from western to Finland. Surveys of the vegetation, using data from , , and expert observations from indigenous reindeer herders, showed that in 8-15% of the area willow (Salix) and alder (Alnus) plants have grown into trees over 2 metres in height in the last 30-40 years.

Previous models assessing the potential impact of forestation have suggested that the advance of forest into Arctic tundra could increase by an extra 1-2 degrees Celsius by the late 21st Century.

A report of the research is published in the journal Nature Climate Change.

"It's a big surprise that these plants are reacting in this way," said Dr. Marc Macias-Fauria of Oxford University’s Department of Zoology and the Oxford Martin School, first author of the paper. "Previously people had thought that the tundra might be colonised by trees from the boreal forest to the south as the warms, a process that would take centuries. But what we've found is that the that are already there are transforming into trees in just a few decades."

"The speed and magnitude of the observed change is far greater than we expected," said Professor Bruce Forbes of the Arctic Centre, University of Lapland, corresponding author of the paper.

The change from shrubs to forest is important as it alters the albedo effect – the amount of sunlight reflected by the surface of the Earth.

In the Arctic spring and autumn much of the time shrubs are covered under a blanket of white, light-reflecting snow. In contrast, trees are tall enough to rise above the snowfall, presenting a dark, light-absorbing surface. This increased absorption of the Sun's radiation, combined with microclimates created by forested areas, adds to : making an already-warming climate warm even more rapidly.

"Of course this is just one small part of the vast Arctic tundra and an area that is already warmer than the rest of the Arctic, probably due to the influence of warm air from the Gulf Stream," said Dr. Macias-Fauria. "However, this area does seem to be a bellwether for the rest of the region, it can show us what is likely to happen to the rest of the Arctic in the near future if these warming trends continue."

Explore further: Thousands of intense earthquakes rock Iceland

More information: A report of the research, entitled 'Eurasian Arctic greening reveals teleconnections and the potential for novel ecosystems', is published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The Finnish-UK team was led by Professor Bruce Forbes of the University of Lapland, Finland.

Related Stories

Climate change generates more Arctic tundra vegetation

Apr 11, 2012

Researchers in Finland have discovered that climate change has impacted various regions of the Arctic tundra by helping increase the levels of vegetation. Their data suggest that this rise could potentially ...

Climate change's impact on Arctic regions by 2099: study

Mar 14, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- Imagine the vast, empty tundra in Alaska and Canada giving way to trees, shrubs and plants typical of more southerly climates. Imagine similar changes in large parts of Eastern Europe, northern ...

Warming climate may cause arctic tundra to burn

Mar 05, 2008

Research from ancient sediment cores indicates that a warming climate could make the world’s arctic tundra far more susceptible to fires than previously thought. The findings, published this week in the online journal, ...

Recommended for you

NASA sees Tropical Storm Lowell's tough south side

3 hours ago

The south side of Tropical Storm Lowell appears to be its toughest side. That is, the side with the strongest thunderstorms, according to satellite imagery from NOAA's GOES-14 and NASA-NOAA's Suomi NPP satellites.

User comments : 125

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

IzitTech
3.2 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2012
No comment about the effect the extra foliage removing CO2 from the atmosphere?
CapitalismPrevails
2 / 5 (21) Jun 04, 2012
This a pro for AGW(better known now as climate change) if it's real. Just like in the past, the weather was warmer which lead to more natural food being available.
Birger
3.4 / 5 (17) Jun 04, 2012
IzitTech, unless the new foliage ends up preserved in a peat bog, the carbon will promptly revert to the atmosphere as the dead foliage is consumed by microorganisms.
The good thing is, these changes are clearly visible and can be easily tracked.
--- --- ---
CapitalismPrevails, no, past North American/European warming was *regional* and balanced by cooling elsewhere (the changes apparently caused by alterations in ocean currents etc.)

The current changes are *global*
But go on whistling in the dark, if you want.
NotParker
2 / 5 (20) Jun 04, 2012
past North American/European warming was *regional*


Except for the Southern Hemisphere had a MWP too. Or more than one.

Several periods were as warm or warmer than today.

http://www.ncdc.n...fig4.png

And if they hadn't cherry-picked proxies and left out Law Dome the MWP would have been bigger.

http://climateaud...proxies/

jrsm
4.5 / 5 (6) Jun 04, 2012
What is the difference in albedo between a deciduous forest with snow cover and tundra? Leaves are gone in winter. Many studies compare evergreen forests with snow cover where there is a significant difference.
When you factor winter daylength and solar angle into the picture, what is the difference in albedo and how will that contribute to the temperature rise that is cited in this article?
NotParker
2 / 5 (17) Jun 04, 2012
The earths albedo dropped considerably during the 1990s. Enough to have caused all of the warming.

"the albedo forcings, in watts/sq meter seem to be fairly large. Larger than that of all manmade greenhouse gases combined"

http://wattsupwit...g-story/
Mike_Massen
3.4 / 5 (17) Jun 04, 2012
CapitalismPrevails remains ignorant and blissfully unaware of plant equilibrium issues with this stupidity
..Just like in the past, the weather was warmer which lead to more natural food being available.
Not necessarily.

Increased CO2 makes for many plants shifting their equilibrium to use this 'extra' input to protect themselves by increasing poisons such as chemicals that release Hydrocyanic Acid. It is already a problem with Cassava and with Clover as feed stock for cattle, time will tell when other food plants start to shift their equilibrium also to produce any number of other poisons as CO2 levels continue to rise.

Clearly CapitalismPrevails needs to stop being a propagandist with emotional attachment to a fixed issue and get an education...
joefarah
2.8 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2012
Boy am I missing something! I thought that more trees reduced the carbon footprint which is "responsible" for global warming. You'd almost think that someone was pulling the wool over my eyes, or trying to.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2012
Willow doesn't produce much in the way of food, and the ongoing desertification of the U.S. grain belt won't either.

"Just like in the past, the weather was warmer which lead to more natural food being available." - CapitalismHasFailed
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2012
Thinking shallow thoughts is good enough for any oll schmoe.

"I thought that more trees reduced the carbon footprint which is "responsible" for global warming." - JoeSchmoe

However thinking individuals will realize that trees will only reduce the rate of CO2 emissions from the soil, since the growth of trees does not control the growth of soil bacteria and fungi.

Further, the trees will only absorb Co2 until they are mature, at which point the release of CO2 from the soil will continue.

Northern forest growth is already included in climate models.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.2 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2012
Who needs an education when one has faith in the failed idea that Capitalism Prevails? Particularly when that faith is challenged by education.

"Clearly CapitalismPrevails needs to stop being a propagandist with emotional attachment to a fixed issue and get an education..." - Mike

With reality stacked up against him, what else can CapitalismFails be other than a propagandist?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2012
Odd that you have spend the better part of the last year claiming that the earth is cooling, and now you provide a reference to a denialist blog that claims to explain the observed warming.

"The earths albedo dropped considerably during the 1990s. Enough to have caused all of the warming." - ParkerTard

Make up your mind ParkerTard. Is the earth warming as indicated by your current link or have you been lying for the last year in your claims that it is cooling?

You are mentally diseased ParkerTard. Get Help.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2012
And yet there is no evidence of one in Australia, NZ or the Asian pacific nations.

"Except for the Southern Hemisphere had a MWP too. Or more than one." - ParkerTard

Denialist ParkerTard, just lies, lies, lies, lies and lies.
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (13) Jun 04, 2012
And yet there is no evidence of one in Australia, NZ or the Asian pacific nations.


... if you close your eyes.

The rest of us can look at the chart where the MWP clearly shows up.

http://www.ncdc.n...fig4.png

Or do you think NASA is lying in this case?
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2012
Odd that you have spend the better part of the last year claiming that the earth is cooling, and now you provide a reference to a denialist blog that claims to explain the observed warming.

"The earths albedo dropped considerably during the 1990s. Enough to have caused all of the warming." - ParkerTard

Make up your mind ParkerTard. Is the earth warming as indicated by your current link or have you been lying for the last year in your claims that it is cooling?

You are mentally diseased ParkerTard. Get Help.


Why is it mentally diseased to stay up on the research? You can play Ostrich and keep your head in the sand.

Remember:

"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."

You go ahead and stay in the poorly educated category.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2012
It takes quite an imagination to see any ice age on ParkerTard's temperature plot.

http://www.ncdc.n...fig4.png

"The rest of us can look at the chart where the MWP clearly shows up. " - ParkerTard

Poor ParkerTard. His mental disease is causing him to see things that just aren't there.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (11) Jun 04, 2012
You mean your "research" from last year that the earth was cooling has not be replaced with research that you have performed over the last 24 hours that shows that the earth is warming?

"Why is it mentally diseased to stay up on the research? " - ParkerTard

But what about Alabama? And your claim made just 24 hours ago that it's temperature decline shows that the earth is cooling?

So you must have switched your "scientific" position twice over the course of the last 24 hours.

Your mental disease is clearly causing you to become very confused.

Poor ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 04, 2012
Yes... I have read this as well, and note that it runs counter to evidence from other nations, with the U.S. being in the small minority in terms of totals.

"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change..." - ParkerTard

The actual results of the study are stated as follows.

Cont...
NotParker
1.3 / 5 (12) Jun 04, 2012
It takes quite an imagination to see any ice age on ParkerTard's temperature plot.

http://www.ncdc.n...fig4.png



The low intelligence people like you have trouble noticing the obvious.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2012

But I do download data from the UK Met, NOAA, HADCET and Canada.


Remember how "Global" warming was supposed to fry everyone, which to me implied the maximum temperature was going to go up.

Nope.

http://i48.tinypi...e645.jpg

Mike_Massen
3.9 / 5 (14) Jun 04, 2012
I live in Perth, Western Australia.
The average humidity has gone up significantly in the last 30 years.
The ocean temperature in some regions has gone down, traced to more cold water coming off Antarctica.
Why would there be more melting of ice sheets on the periphery of Antarctica ?

The general weather system is subject to chaotic influence & changes in equilibrium, for anyone who has studied physics at university level & does not have an emotional schism hoping we are too insignificant to make small changes in temperature and CO2, then its more than obvious the global weather system is changing due to overall warming, not by much so far but, in concert with increased CO2 raises serious concerns.

The obvious thing to do is shift the equilibrium back by lowering CO2 & any other greenhouse gases.

Please try & get a grip, the Earth's ecosystem is mostly a closed system, humans are pumping huge amounts of CO2 & other greenhouse gases into the system along with an increased heat load..
gregor1
1 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2012
Strange then that we pump the atmosphere with Hexafluoroethane which has a global warming potential 12,000 times higher than CO2, to make solar panels.
http://thegwpf.or...gy-.html
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2012
I don't see any ice age in your graph Tard Boy. I see a gradual cooling of 0.2'C over 600 years followed by the current spike in temperatures of more than .5'C over the last 100.

This represents a warming trend that is 15 times faster and 2.5 times more extensive than the cooling trend.

But I don't see any ice age.

Perhaps you can tell us where it is.

http://www.ncdc.n...fig4.png

"The low intelligence people like you have trouble noticing the obvious." - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Jun 04, 2012
The main industrial emissions of hexafluoroethane besides tetrafluoromethane is in the production of aluminium using the Hall-Héroult process.

"Strange then that we pump the atmosphere with Hexafluoroethane which has a global warming potential 12,000 times higher than CO2, to make solar panels." - GregorTard

You would have to pump 3e9 kilograms of the stuff into the atmosphere per year to have the same effects as CO2.

How much is being released through solar cell manufacture?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2012
ParkerTard seems to have a remarkable ability to remember his own delusions as if they were real.

"Remember how "Global" warming was supposed to fry everyone" - ParkerTard

Poor mentally ill ParkerTard. You are diseased. Get to a pharmacologist.

Death will not come through "burning", but through starvation, heat prostration, war and dehydration.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2012
It is odd how ParkerTard presents a graphic showing maximum temperatures going up in the U.K. to support his assertion that they aren't going up globally.

"to me implied the maximum temperature was going to go up.
Nope. http://i48.tinypi...e645.jpg" - ParkerTard

ParkerTard's Mental diseasee is truly radical in it's scope.
gregor1
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 04, 2012
Mike I feel many in the environment movement suffer from the pristine environment fallacy particularly with regard to climate. The one constant in the environment is change and without it there would be no evolution. The pristine meme stems from the garden of eden myth and is probably one of the reasons religious fundamentalists are so anti evolution. The fact is the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we only have reliable climate data for 150 yrs or so so climate "science" is like an ant trying to describe an elephant. It's tempting to try and reach conclusions that we don't yet have the data to support but a little unwise. History is littered with stories of humans causing untold harm trying to avert disastrous future events predicted from insufficient data. Human sacrifice to ensure the rise of the sun immediately comes to mind.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2012
Slow change drives the evolution of higher order organisms.

Rapid change brings their extinction, but drives the evolution of lower order and smaller organisms who's reproductive cycle is shorter.

"The one constant in the environment is change and without it there would be no evolution.' - GregorTard

GregorTard so "loves" life that he is willing to make extinct 30% of the species on earth.

Perhaps he loves war, disease, famine and other forms of mass death for the same reason.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (5) Jun 04, 2012
The record books for Greenlands climate were re-written on Tuesday, when the mercury hit 24.8°C (76.6°F) at Narsarsuaq, Greenland, on the southern coast. According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, this is the hottest temperature on record in Greenland for May, and is just 0.7°C (1.3°F) below the hottest temperature ever measured in Greenland.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2012
The record books for Greenlands climate were re-written on Tuesday, when the mercury hit 24.8C (76.6F) at Narsarsuaq, Greenland, on the southern coast. According to weather records researcher Maximiliano Herrera, this is the hottest temperature on record in Greenland for May, and is just 0.7C (1.3F) below the hottest temperature ever measured in Greenland.


... which was 25.2°C at Narsarsuaq on June 22, 1957. 55 years ago.

Narsarsuaq is pretty much as far south as you can go in Greenland, and farther south than Iceland.

NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2012
It is odd how ParkerTard presents a graphic showing maximum temperatures going up in the U.K. to support his assertion that they aren't going up globally.

"to me implied the maximum temperature was going to go up.
Nope. http://i48.tinypi...e645.jpg" - ParkerTard

ParkerTard's Mental diseasee is truly radical in it's scope.


Wow I see temperatures that peaked in 1976 and you don't.

You have basic comprehension problems.
NotParker
1 / 5 (8) Jun 04, 2012
I don't see any ice age in your graph Tard Boy. I see a gradual cooling of 0.2'C over 600 years followed by the current spike in temperatures of more than .5'C over the last 100.


Wow. You have comprehension problems.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2012
ParkerTard sees many things that just aren't there.

From his own data in which he also sees an ice age....

http://www.ncdc.n...fig4.png

"I see temperatures that peaked in 1976 and you don't." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is mentally diseased and delusional.
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Jun 05, 2012
Ya it was warm that day. And 18'C the day before and the day after.

"which was 25.2°C at Narsarsuaq on June 22, 1957. 55 years ago." - ParkerTard

That was some heat wave there back in 1957, Tard Boy.
FainAvis
1.8 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012
@Vendicar
Some of your comments may have merit, but your abusive tone reveals you to be a bully.
Anda
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2012
"The fact is the earth is 4.5 billion years old and we only have reliable climate data for 150 yrs " an ignorant idiot...

"Some of your comments may have merit, but your abusive tone reveals you to be a bully."
And what are you?
I don't always agree with Vendicar but I always have fun reading him replying to the "Tards" ;)
Mike_Massen
2.7 / 5 (9) Jun 05, 2012
gregor1 needs to get up to speed on contemporary methodology:
..History is littered with stories of humans causing untold harm trying to avert disastrous future events predicted from insufficient data..
I also have an interest in history, the vast bulk of those events likely predate the effective use of integration in conjunction with modelling.

When you combine the data of just how much CO2 and other non-natural emissions humans have pumped into the atmosphere *and* contemporary modelling *and* the integration of temperature data over large areas *and* sea level rises (eg Tuvali) *and* the appreciation we have an essentially closed system *then* you reach the assessment we have a global issue to address.

Its questionable just how much the effect will really be but it does make sense to err on the side of caution by reducing CO2 emissions as the physics and chemistry of this gas and other greenhouse contributors are very well known.

We should be vigilant and attentive.

Cheers
gregor1
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2012
The proposed "cures" may well be worse than the disease.
Birger
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012
The cures include engines with better efficiency, switching to more biofuels, producing affordable photoelectric panels and -hopefully- carbon sequestration in exhausted oil wells.
before you go on about the cost, just consider the cost of losing pieces of Florida and Holland. The thing about coastal cities is that they are close to sea level.
Mike_Massen
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
gregor1 could extend understanding to fact we are dealing with a dynamic:
The proposed "cures" may well be worse than the disease.
There cannot be a static 'cure' as such; like driving a car at varying speeds, if the steering goes off to one side then its not a cure to change lanes as they also wind around various bends eventually, I hope this analogy is at least partially indicative.

As money <~=> energy we need to be cautious we don't spend much more on renewables over the short term or we end up obfuscating & deferring CO2 emissions.

Certainly getting off fossil fuels & improving energy usage will be a good start & provided governments don't make this difficult by withholding reasonable tax credits then there is no extra 'disease' conceivable from this move.

Diesel can be made from sugars with GM yeast, next issue is extend this to cellulosic biomas & sequester CO2 biologically if at all possible first before moves to try it physically.
Algaes etc, for food http://zeri.org
Vendicar_Decarian
3.3 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2012
Since the disease is extinction, you are undoubtedly wrong.

"The proposed "cures" may well be worse than the disease." - GregorTard

The cure may include the extinction of some denialists however.
gregor1
1 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2012
So maybe we should cut down much of the world's rainforest and produce renewable palm oil or, I know, lets forcibly sterilize ten million poor Indian people. I'm sorry but the effect of too much CO2 is looking to be rather trivial. VD's malicious hysteria is looking to be more and more unnecessary by the day. At the very least we should be demanding transparency, a mandatory requirement of all science, from the doomsday modelers. If their models are so wonderful what are they trying to hide? Garbage in garbage out I'm thinking.
rubberman
2.6 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012
So maybe we should cut down much of the world's rainforest and produce renewable palm oil or, I know, lets forcibly sterilize ten million poor Indian people. I'm sorry but the effect of too much CO2 is looking to be rather trivial. VD's malicious hysteria is looking to be more and more unnecessary by the day. At the very least we should be demanding transparency, a mandatory requirement of all science, from the doomsday modelers. If their models are so wonderful what are they trying to hide? Garbage in garbage out I'm thinking.


Or maybe we could shift our focus from being a society based on aquisition and consumption to one based on environmental maintenance and material longevity....you know, clean up our messes and those of past generations instead of leaving it for future generations to deal with. VD's "malicious hysteria" stems from being a realist. Your land clearing proposal is far more likely than what I have just said.
runrig
3.4 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012


Remember how "Global" warming was supposed to fry everyone, which to me implied the maximum temperature was going to go up.

Nope.

http://i48.tinypi...e645.jpg



Nope indeed - we were never "going to fry" - another stupidly simplistic comment PT. The extra warmth in the atmosphere will be most marked at the poles, especially the NP. Now some basic meteorology. The Jet stream is the delineation of the colder arctic air and more sub-tropical air and with the weakening temp contrast between the two the jet will also be weaker - be more liable to meander and produced blocked patterns. So the Science says that there will be greater variability in the climate. Hence Climate change. A small part of the globe like the UK is much more likely therefore to see marked seasonal variability. Just don't seem to get away from a straight line up can you? whether globally or regionally.
NotParker
1.6 / 5 (13) Jun 05, 2012


Remember how "Global" warming was supposed to fry everyone, which to me implied the maximum temperature was going to go up.

Nope.

http://i48.tinypi...e645.jpg



Nope indeed - we were never "going to fry" - another stupidly simplistic comment PT.


Don't tell such obvious lies.

Every chicken little in the AGW cult claims we are going to fry and that temperature are going to climb 2C or 5C or 6C.

There have been at least a dozen of them on this site in the last month or 2.

"Warming Could Exceed 3.5C, say Climate Scientists".

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

HADCET Summer. Warmest year 1976 (35 years ago). Last 5 years were at least 1.5C colder than 1976 and 2011 was 2C colder.

http://sunshineho...-decade/
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2012
The cures include engines with better efficiency, switching to more biofuels, producing affordable photoelectric panels and -hopefully- carbon sequestration in exhausted oil wells.
before you go on about the cost, just consider the cost of losing pieces of Florida and Holland. The thing about coastal cities is that they are close to sea level.


Or, in the case of Holland below.

"The Dutch and their ancestors have been working to hold back and reclaim land from the North Sea for over 2000 years. Over 2000 years ago, the Frisians who first settled the Netherlands began to build terpen, the first dikes to hold back the water."

http://geography....ykes.htm
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
"Don't tell such obvious lies.

Every chicken little in the AGW cult claims we are going to fry and that temperature are going to climb 2C or 5C or 6C.

There have been at least a dozen of them on this site in the last month or 2.

"Warming Could Exceed 3.5C, say Climate Scientists"."

No lies - get a book on meteorology.

The 3.5C is for the end of the century. Like in 88 years.
AND is global with the poles taking the lions share of the rise. Apart from that the 3.5C is NOT a maximum as in the average highest recorded. It is an average average - as in adding the min to the max and divide by 2. So, a greater role could be played by higher night-time minima - which it probably will as a result of greater WV ( absolute not relative ). AND still there may be cold winters/springs due to a weakened jet-stream.

SO not "frying" at all ... emotive and unscientific language - rooted in an ignorance ( or willful misrepresentation ) of the science.

BTW: I'm English. What is "Chicken Little"
runrig
5 / 5 (1) Jun 05, 2012
NotParker
1.7 / 5 (12) Jun 05, 2012
"Don't tell such obvious lies.


They say the planet could warm by 3.5C. Not the poles.

As you can see by my examples, the whole planet is about .2C warmer than 1944 in 2011 (HADCRUT3).

Thats .2C in 70 years. Only the most insane chicken little could get to 3.5C in 88 years when it has only warmed .2C in the last 70.

Now, back to HADCET. The maximum is down over the last 5 years by 1.5C.

Therefore the minimum has to rise by 5C over the next 88 to compensate for the dropping maximum.

It's all bogus. It is a lie. The AGW cult leaders do predict we will fry.

We won't. We are fine. In fact the coming solar Maunder-type minimum is the real danger.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2012
"Henny Penny, also known as Chicken Licken or Chicken Little, is a folk tale with a moral in the form of a cumulative tale about a chicken who believes the world is coming to an end. The phrase The sky is falling! features prominently in the story, and has passed into the English language as a common idiom indicating a hysterical or mistaken belief that disaster is imminent."

http://en.wikiped...ny_Penny
runrig
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
"They say the planet could warm by 3.5C. Not the poles."

The planet includes the poles. Last time I looked anyway, and as I said the poles will take the lions share of the rise.

Feedbacks will accelerate any warming hence an increasing rise. Not 0.2C/decade for 88 years.

Also any grand solar minimum ( which I agree is an increasing probability by 2030 ) is in UV, affecting the Stratosphere in making the Stratospheric vortex very much weaker in ( some ) winter(s), which in turn influences the Troposphere to weaken ( a normally very strong Atlantic jet ) allowing a AO and allowing Arctic air to spill south. Hence some cold winters in NW Europe in the LIA and also lastly Dec 2010 in UK.

That's colder winters regionally not globally - the poles in that scenario would be warmer - so you just get a redistribution of warm/cold - again added up to THE SAME.

As for other bits - your errors have been repeatedly pointed out and to do so again would be waste of effort on my part.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2012
I don't think Gregor is on the right page.

He is whining about forced sterilization when he is looking in the face of mass execution for denialist and capitalist crimes against nature and man.

"I know, lets forcibly sterilize ten million poor Indian people." - GregorTard

You and your progeny will either live sustainably or they will die.

Reality is Relentless.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
Cluck.. The economic sky will fall. Cluck.. Cluck... We will all be economically doomed. Cluck... Cluck... Therefore we must deny the reality that Western style Capitalism is unsustainable. Bukkawwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.... - Little ParkerTard

"Henny Penny, also known as Chicken Licken or Chicken Little, is a folk tale with a moral in the form of a cumulative tale about a chicken who believes the world is coming to an end." - ParkerTard

More fantasy from ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2012
Poor ParkerTard. He just insists on using an outdated temperature series that excludes large sections of the poles.

Then he lies by drawing a line between the highest temperature of the period with the highest of this period and then claims that this is the difference in global temperatures.

The dishonest cherrypicking of data is his only tactic.

Meanwhile here is the temperature trend from 1934...

http://www.woodfo...34/trend

The real Temperature trend is 0.6'C since 1934.

"As you can see by my examples, the whole planet is about .2C warmer than 1944 in 2011 (HADCRUT3)." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard is mentally diseased. He has some deep seated need to lie about almost everything. He needs to see a psychiatrist and then a pharmacologist.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
With the Dutch using wind to do virtually all of the pumping.

But what if the wind isn't blowing? Whines ParkerTard.

Well, it seem to have serviced the Dutch well for the last 2000 years, as you have just stated.

"The Dutch and their ancestors have been working to hold back and reclaim land from the North Sea for over 2000 years" - ParkerTard

Awwwww Poor ParkerTard. His lies just continue to contradict each other.

His mental illness is the cause.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2012
"They say the planet could warm by 3.5C. Not the poles."

The planet includes the poles. Last time I looked anyway, and as I said the poles will take the lions share of the rise.


East Antarctica is cooling. That leaves the north pole. Lets say 10% of the planet ...

How much does the north pole need to warm to warm up the whole planet 3.5C?

35C?

Utterly ridiculous.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2012
With the Dutch using wind to do virtually all of the pumping.


"today most of the windmills have been replaced with electricity- and diesel-driven pumps."

"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."

NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012


Then he lies by drawing a line between the highest temperature of the period with the highest of this period and then claims that this is the difference in global temperatures.


Climate is like a series of waves.

When you measure waves, to see if they are getting larger or smaller, you measure the difference between peaks, not trough to peak.

1944 was the climate wave in the pre-1950 period.

We are now barely warmer than 1944. And in terms of months, Jan of 1944 was warmer than Jan 2011 and Jan 2012.

NotParker
1 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012
That's colder winters regionally not globally - the poles in that scenario would be warmer - so you just get a redistribution of warm/cold - again added up to THE SAME.


Actually what seems to be happening is that for short period of time the occasional really cold years disappeared. The max temp did not go up, just the lows were not as severe.

The last 5 years have seen some very cold years.

You can see it on this graph (and many others).

http://i48.tinypi...e645.jpg

Up until 1998, every few years temperatures dropped well below the median. Then from 1998 to 2006 they did not.

2007 was below the median pink line, 2008 was barely above, 2009 and 2010 were above but not by much and 2011 was below.

If you graph regional temperatures that is happening in a lot of places.

It demolishes the CO2 theory.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2012
And what about the freezer in your kitchen?

"East Antarctica is cooling." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard should be out climbing fruit trees so that he can be cherry picking for real money rather than the chump change he is being paid now.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2012
Such questions are of vital importance in the land of Tard.

"How much does the north pole need to warm to warm up the whole planet 3.5C?" - ParkerTard

Back here on planet Earth, we use globally distributed temperature measurments to compute global averages.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2012
ParkerTard's latest lie is easy to expose.

"The last 5 years have seen some very cold years.
You can see it on this graph (and many others).
http://i48.tinypi...e645.jpg"

He claims that global temperatures have been very cold over the last few years and then provides a weather chart for the U.K. region to support his position.

The U.K. isn't representative of the globe.

ParkerTard is morally corrupt and mentally diseased.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2012
Here ParkerTard is claiming that Climate is predictable. It is a contrdiction of his earlier claims that it can not be predicted.

"Climate is like a series of waves." - ParkerTard

Make up your mind boy. Is there a party going on in your head?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012
Are you now retracting your earlier claim that for 2,000 years the dutch used wind power to reclaim land from the sea?

"today most of the windmills have been replaced with electricity- and diesel-driven pumps." - ParkerTard

Make up your mind ParkerTard. Is wind power reliable enough to keep the Dutch from being under water? Or have you been lying about the "unreliability" of wind power?

The problem with lying is that liars always end up tripping over their own lies.
rubberman
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012
"Climate is like a series of waves.

When you measure waves, to see if they are getting larger or smaller, you measure the difference between peaks, not trough to peak."

Yet another "WOW" moment from idiotbox.
If wave #1 is 2 meters from trough to peak, and wave #2 is 1.3 meters from trough to peak but the second wave peak is .4 meters higher than the 1st, the above logic claims that wave #2 is larger than wave #1. The reality of course, as in most cases, is the opposite of what has been stated by NotParker. The only way to measure wave height is peak to the following trough.

http://www.island...glos.htm

Temperature is indeed like a series of waves, the ending point is always the present , where you start from determines the up or down trend with peaks and troughs in between. You always attempt to show a cooling trend except when you are trying to show a warming trend for the same time, then you pick a different start date....clever....for a 6 year old
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2012
Climate scientists do both of course, using the difference between peak and trough to determine how the water level is rising, and measuring peak to trough in order to determine how sever the changes are becoming.

"When you measure waves, to see if they are getting larger or smaller, you measure the difference between peaks, not trough to peak." - ParkerTard

ParkerTard doesn't know enough to take the difference between peak and trough so he can't figure out if his bath water is rising or not.

Poor, scientifically illiterate Tard.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Jun 05, 2012
ParkerTards are what you get when Capitalists control the education system.

"1944 was the climate wave in the pre-1950 period." - ParkerTard

You can't get more Tard than ParkerTard.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
Lets just sum up ParkerTard's latest argument.

A 7 foot tall guy walks into Tard Boy's house and he notes the height.

80 years later a 5 foot tall guy walks into his house, and from this ParkerTard deduces that the average human height has decreased by 2 feet over those 80 years.

You can't get more Tard than ParkerTard.

NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
Climate is like a series of waves.


As you can see below, the massive 34 year long pre-CO2 wave from 1909 to 1943, the 35 year stagnation, the shorter shallower 18 year wave from 1980 to 1998, and then the first 14 years of stagnation/dropping temperatures that may have another 20 or more years to go.

http://www.woodfo...77/trend

There is no CO2 signature. Its just natural climate changes as earth recovers from the LIA.

http://i47.tinypi...5ykp.jpg

NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
Lets just sum up ParkerTard's latest argument.

A 7 foot tall guy walks into Tard Boy's house and he notes the height.

80 years later a 5 foot tall guy walks into his house, and from this ParkerTard deduces that the average human height has decreased by 2 feet over those 80 years.


More like:

In 1940s, over 5,000 climate stations were used to create the global average.

In 2012, the number used by GISTemp etc was down to 1,500.

http://jonova.s3....2008.gif

The 5,000 stations in the 1940s said the temperature was very warm.

After dropping 3,500 stations (the coldest ones), a few corrupt scientists claim it is .2C warmer than 70 years ago.

NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012

The U.K. isn't representative of the globe.


The is the global graph.

http://www.woodfo...rom:2006

Notice how 2008 was .5C colder than 2007 and 2011 and 2012 were almost as cold.

And that 2008 was only .1C above the average.

Notice how 1942 and late 1943 were .2C above the global average.

http://www.woodfo.../to:1944
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012
It looks like a staircase to me. With the first step caused by aerosol cooling from the west causing the first step and aerosol cooling from the east in part causing the second step.

ParkerTard claims to see consecutive waves.

"As you can see below, the massive 34 year long pre-CO2 wave from 1909 to 1943, the 35 year stagnation, the shorter shallower 18 year wave from 1980 to 1998, and then the first 14 years of stagnation/dropping temperatures that may have another 20 or more years to go." - ParkerTard

Seeing things that aren't there is a sign of a deep mental illness.

I urge Parkertard to get psychiatric help.
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
It looks like a staircase to me. With the first step caused by aerosol cooling from the west causing the first step and aerosol cooling from the east in part causing the second step.


Aerosol cooling from 1909 to 1943 resulted in 1C of warming?

That would make sense only to the "poorly educated".

"A US government-funded survey has found that Americans with higher levels of scientific and mathematical knowledge are more sceptical regarding the dangers of climate change than their more poorly educated fellow citizens."

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012
Parkertard insists that because the highest monthy temperature in 1944 exceeded the lowest montly temperature in 2010, the earth isn't warming.

He might as well argue that people can't be increasing in height because the tallest man in 1800 was taller than the shortest man toay.

Such Idiocy from ParkerTard.

He is mentally diseased.

http://i47.tinypi...5ykp.jpg - ParkerTard
Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Jun 05, 2012
ParkerTard's comments are so disjoint that it is hard to make out what he is jabberinga about....

"Aerosol cooling from 1909 to 1943 resulted in 1C of warming?" - ParkerTard

Nothing was said about 1909 to 1943, is .45'C not 1'C

http://www.woodfo...43/trend

Can't Parker Tard's poor, polluted mind get anything right?

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2012
Parkertard insists that because the highest monthy temperature in 1944 exceeded the lowest montly temperature in 2010, the earth isn't warming.


No. January 1944 was warmer than January 2011 and January 2012.

HADCRUT3 says the whole year of 1944 was 0.121 above the 1961-1990 average.

HADCRUT3 says 2011 was 0.339 above the 1961-1990 average.

Well within the margin of error of being the same.

Of course if they used the 5,000 thermometers they used in 1944 instead of the cherry-picked 1,500 they used in 2011, 1944 would be warmer.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 05, 2012
ParkerTard's comments are so disjoint that it is hard to make out what he is jabberinga about....

"Aerosol cooling from 1909 to 1943 resulted in 1C of warming?" - ParkerTard

Nothing was said about 1909 to 1943, is .45'C not 1'C


HADCRUT3 says 1909 bottomed out at -0.703 in March and the warmest part of 1944 was 0.232.

.935C is close enough to 1C (which I measured by eye).

I wouldn't call that cooling. It was warming. Before CO2 supposedly had any effect.

By the way, Feb of 1878 was 0.364C. Feb of 2012 was .194C.

That makes Feb 2012 .17C colder than 1878.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
And Feb 1944 wasn't.

"January 1944 was warmer than January 2011 and January 2012." - ParkerTard

No matter how it is explained to him, Parkertard just refuses to distinguish between Weather and Climate.

His psychological disease prevents it.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
ParkerTard is still clinging to HadCrut3 because he knows that it dramatically under-represents the polar regions - which are regions warming faster than any other place.

"HADCRUT3 says..." - ParkerTard

HadCrut 3 is outdated boy. Now go change your underpants. You have soiled them again.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
What was the temperature in your easy bake oven?

"1909 bottomed out at -0.703 in March and the warmest part of 1944 was 0.232." - ParkerTard

Come on Tard Boy. you did record that temperature didn't you? It has as much application to global average climate as the pitiful nonsense that you are throwing about.

Get help Tard Boy, before it is too late.
NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 05, 2012
VD: What was the temperature in your easy bake oven?


?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 05, 2012
Come on Tard Boy. you did record that temperature didn't you? It has as much application to global average climate as the pitiful nonsense that you are throwing about.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 05, 2012
NotParker - in making comment about global warming - you use a tiny subset of data like this http://i48.tinypi...e645.jpg - or you use the Wood for Trees data - but only select the hadcrut3 data. I spent time with the Wood for Trees site - and found that every other data set - including the hadcrut4 - showed a very clear warming trend over the past 100 yrs - with a solid 1 degree of warming on most of the data sets. Why do you select Hadcrut3? Could it be called cherry picking?
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2012
The Hadcrut 4 data is probably less reliable as it was "adjusted" by activist of the team Phil Jones
"All up these adjustments increase the trend in the last century. We have yet to witness a new dataset release where a cooling adjustment has been applied. The likelihood that all adjustments to data need to be positive is nil. This is partly why they argue so fervently against a UHI effect and other land use effects which would require a cooling adjustment."
http://wattsupwit...again-2/

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2012
The method used is available to you on line.

What do you object to exactly? What methods used, are wrong?

"The Hadcrut 4 data is probably less reliable as it was "adjusted" by activist of the team Phil Jones" - GregorTard

I await your non-response with laughter.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2012
"The Hadcrut 4 data is probably less reliable" Are you going to dismiss the GISS, Crutem4, Best? Here is even a Crutem3 for you showing a solid 1 degree rise in the past 100 years. http://www.woodfo.../to:2012
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2012
I think my link answers most of your questions. Why are all adjustments positive? Surely some should be negative don't you think? These "adjustments" have been happening all over the world. Australia, Reykjavik, Greenland, and New Zealand. The New Zealand case is a classic and, as the number of stations in the Southern Hemisphere is so small during the first half of the twentieth century, is very important. The original records from there show 0.3 C warming over more than a century but these were conveniently 'adjusted' to show 1.0C warming. This is being fought out in the New Zealand courts in the next few months and I'm guessing it's the legal profession rather than so called "climate scientists" who will settle this around the world in the end. Until we sort this most data sets are suspect I'm afraid
http://wattsupwit...stments/
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2012
http://www.youtub...ure=plcp

"Why are all adjustments positive?" - GregorTard

Oh, that is simple....

They aren't. You are simply lying.

Here is a comparison...

https://docs.goog...oemtZZFE

Now the majority of the record is higher because Hadcrut4 does a better job of covering the polar regions where Hadcrut3 just excluded large regions of the poles.

Since the poles are warming faster than the rest of the planet, this increases the global average.
gregor1
2.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2012
The vast majority are positive, and perhaps coincidentally, they look similar to the warming trend.
http://wattsupwit..._pg1.gif
djr
5 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2012
I think my link answers most of your questions. No it does not. The question was asking NotParker why he selects one data set, or very limited piece of data (the United Kingdom) when refuting global warming - vs looking at a more complete data set such as GIS, or one of the other sets presented on Wood For Trees. Of course the answer is because he is cherry picking data to support his position. Now I do the same thing - and can watch myself combing the data to look for information that supports my view point. I think that is normal. However - I am not the one claiming that there is some grand conspiracy of scientists to manipulate data and falsify science in order to maintain my funding. Science is different than David or NotParker. Science has a system (peer review) that is designed to catch bias. I believe it works. I know scientists - they are a prickly and proud bunch of people who take their integrity seriously.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2012
The Hadcrut 4 data is probably less reliable as it was "adjusted" by activist of the team Phil Jones


HADCRUT4 has no data past 2010 and leaves out the cold year of 2011 which was colder than 1997.

But I do like this map of HADCRUT4 anomalies:

http://www.metoff...adcrut4/

The dark blue was 10C colder than 1961-1990. Brrr.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2012
I think my link answers most of your questions. No it does not. The question was asking NotParker why he selects one data set, or very limited piece of data (the United Kingdom) when refuting global warming


I frequently mention large parts of the USA too.

Alabama is a prime example cooling at -.07F/decade from 1895

https://sunshineh...8951.png

Arkansas

https://sunshineh...1895.png

and all the others that are cooling or essentially flat from 1895.

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

Does anyone else show such graphs?

Why do I pick the UK and USA? The data is easy to download and graph.
djr
5 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2012
"I frequently mention large parts of the USA too." Does that not prove the point? You are cherry picking!!! We are talking about global temperatures. Look - I could show you that 2011 was the hottest year on record for Austin Texas. http://www.states...123.html But that is cherry picking. Look at your Wood for Trees site. Run a report on 1900 to 2012 - and you will see a clear trend on all of the data sets - the line slopes up!!! Usually showing a good 1 degree C increase in that time period. I say again - you cherry pick to prove your point....
NotParker
1 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2012
"The Hadcrut 4 data is probably less reliable" Are you going to dismiss the GISS, Crutem4, Best? Here is even a Crutem3 for you showing a solid 1 degree rise in the past 100 years.


CRUTEM3 things to think about:

Jan 1870 0.295
Jan 1926 0.328
Jan 1944 0.505

Jan 2008 0.234
Jan 2011 0.240
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2012
"I frequently mention large parts of the USA too." Does that not prove the point? You are cherry picking!!!


You claim "global" warming.

I demolish the "global" claim by showing parts of the world did not warm or have warmed very little or warmed more or faster in the past.

Nobody on your side shows you this data. They think you are simple-minded and might be confused by data that does not support their grant-seeking story.

NotParker
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 06, 2012
Run a report on 1900 to 2012 - and you will see a clear trend on all of the data sets - the line slopes up!!!


Not really. It is much more complicated than that.

http://www.woodfo...77/trend

And do remember, GIS etc used to use 5,000 or more stations. Now they use about 1,500. Hansen has manipulated the past temperatures to move 1934 down with no justification.

The yellow bar is 1934 in the USA. In 1998 it was by far the warmest year ever.

http://i52.tinypi...fgr8.gif

Hansen cools the past to make the present SEEM warmer.

http://stevengodd...e-1930s/
djr
5 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2012
"Not really. It is much more complicated than that." It is only more complicated than that because you want to cherry pick the data to suit your needs. Just do a straight analysis of temperature data from 1900 to 2012. Here I will do it for you http://www.woodfo...12/every

That is with the more conservative hadcrut3 data - and it shows a very clear trend - you are just trying to complicate things to support your own view point....
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 06, 2012
I demolish the "global" claim by showing parts of the world did not warm. You don't demolish anything - you show a lack of understanding of what we are looking at. The climate picture is complicated - when you take sub sets of data - you show a limited understanding of the climate. Stop cherry picking the data to suit your needs - the overall data set is what shows us how much heat the globe is absorbing - and the overall data sets are clear - a continued upward trend in the last 100 years. You demolish nothing except your own credibility.
Mike_Massen
2.2 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2012
Good point djr:-)
..I know scientists - they are a prickly and proud bunch of people who take their integrity seriously
I feel it might help others (if they can read *and* think) to add

Science is "The discipline of the acquisition of knowledge".

A protocol which aims to arrive at truth however, a key issue missed by many, Science is a dynamic, any truth along the path proves ultimately transient & tied up with linguistics & with the general help of Gödel and others it has proven essentially asymptotic.

This doesn't mean any number of trained scientists & those claiming to be scientists are not dogmatic & understandably so. In general we all crave certainty & makes sense as it reduces biological energy, offers comfort but sadly then entertains complacency.

It takes a particular mindset to engage enlightened uncertainty but address the temporary certainty of patterns and weave through the probabilistic environment.

Sadly many are deterministic and seek conviction & not truth.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 06, 2012
I demolish the "global" claim by showing parts of the world did not warm. You don't demolish anything -


I do. If Alabama or Arkansas or dozens of other locations warmed more in the 20s/30s/40s (as Greenland did) it is just part of a cycle.

YOU have to explaint he exceptions and why no CO2 warming signal is visible once you stop using the cherry-picked subset of stations called GIS or NOAA or HADCRUT.

djr
5 / 5 (4) Jun 06, 2012
"cherry-picked subset of stations called GIS or NOAA or HADCRUT." So showing that Alabama had some temperature anomalies is not cherry picking your data - but looking at a global data set such as GIS is cherry picking. I guess you have to live in your own world of delusion. It is like you are a young earth creationist - no amount of data will ever persuade - because you can always find one anomaly that in your mind demonstrates that all the science out there is flawed - and you have been blessed with special knowledge....
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2012
"cherry-picked subset of stations called GIS or NOAA or HADCRUT." So showing that Alabama had some temperature anomalies is not cherry picking your data - but looking at a global data set such as GIS is cherry picking.


As far as I know, NOAA Alabama is ALL GHCN stations in Alabama.

GIS cherry picks some GHCN stations in the US and some in the rest of the world.

NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 06, 2012
Just do a straight analysis of temperature data from 1900 to 2012.


Why. It is generally accepted by climate "scientists" CO2 had no serious affect on climate until 1950.

SkepticalScience, one of the chief propaganda sites for AGW says:

"Before 1940, the increase in temperature is believed to have been caused mainly by two factors:

Increasing solar activity;

and Low volcanic activity (as eruptions can have a cooling effect by blocking out the sun)."

So, those people like you who try and blame the 1909 to 1940 warming on CO2 are con artists.
gregor1
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 06, 2012
More news today on the adjusting of data http://wattsupwit...records/
Howhot
4.4 / 5 (7) Jun 07, 2012
Wow, gregor1. That is the dumbest POS story I've read from the deniers lately. Summary: there really isn't global warming, it's all just a conspiracy by NOAA to manipulate numbers so scientist can rake in billions in government handouts. Bwahhhaaaaaahahaha!

Talk about lower than life trash propaganda from the denier crowd. You can't make a HAIRCUT3 data set look cooling enough, so you an your denier ilk make the crap up. Disgusting low life. An F for you.
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 07, 2012
Wow, gregor1. That is the dumbest POS story I've read from the deniers lately. Summary: there really isn't global warming, it's all just a conspiracy by NOAA to manipulate numbers so scientist can rake in billions in government handouts.


Good point. I love the map showing 95% of the adjustments were to cool the past making it appear it is warmer now.

This graph also shows they have warmed the present USHCN stations by .5C and started warming them in the 1950s.

Those are adjustments.

http://wattsupwit...nts1.png

As Dr. Roy Spencer said about the NOAA-NCDC USHCN record, 1973-2012 (read original post for full context):

2) Virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data, mainly in the 1995-97 timeframe.
gregor1
1.5 / 5 (8) Jun 07, 2012
Feeling threatened Howhot? Apologies for bursting your bubble but I think you'll find the temperature records are controlled by a relatively small number of people. Your hissy fit should wait until after the High Court decision in New Zealand.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012
And yet the Koch funded BEST climate study got the data, performed it's analysis and came to the same results as everyone else.

If you were smart enough, you could do the same.

"Apologies for bursting your bubble but I think you'll find the temperature records are controlled by a relatively small number of people." - GregorTard

But you aren't.
gregor1
2.1 / 5 (7) Jun 08, 2012
Garbage in garbage out. BEST used the adjusted data from New Zealand as far as I can see.http://drtimball....dux-not/
rynox
5 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2012
Please tell me we're not still arguing about whether or not the earth is actually warming...
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 08, 2012
"Garbage in garbage out." - GregorTard

Yes, that best sums up the Denialist faith.

As to GregorTard's link...

Ball makes a good living Lying for the Carbon Industry.

Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP).

Two of the three directors of the NRSP - Timothy Egan and Julio Lagos - are executives with the PR and lobbying company, the High Park Group (HPG).

Both HPG and Egan and Lagos work for energy industry clients and companies on energy policy.

Ball is a Canadian climate change skeptic and was previously a "scientific advisor" to the oil industry-backed organization, Friends of Science.

Ball is a member of the Board of Research Advisors of the Frontier Centre for Public Policy, a Canadian free-market think tank which is predominantly funded by foundations and corporations.

Ball is also a writer for Tech Central Station
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 08, 2012
Please tell me we're not still arguing about whether or not the earth is actually warming...


Which part of the earth? Oceans?

2011 was .137C warmer than 1941.

And .176C colder than 1998.

http://www.cru.ue...t2gl.txt
Mike_Massen
3 / 5 (8) Jun 08, 2012
Surely CapitalismPrevails is guessing, what food, for what species, what cycle?, enough water?, what region?
This a pro for AGW(better known now as climate change) if it's real. Just like in the past, the weather was warmer which lead to more natural food being available.
Vague obtuse obgeneralisations like this are utter crap !

Warmer climates dont automatically mean more food, eg Foliage, then these can be 'taken' by niche life-forms according to any number of complex interactions, the variables are vast, what makes you think such a *basic* generalisation carries any weight whatsoever... ?

Details matter - spit it out man ?

SatanLover
1.3 / 5 (29) Jun 08, 2012
In the name of Satan i am commanding NotParker to shut his mouth! OR i will sacrifice this goat and use voodoo to sew his mouth shut.
We have been compromised, the humans have caught us. They figured out our CO2 robots are turning the Earth into a flaming ball of death. Stop convincing them otherwise it is wasted energy.
btb101
5 / 5 (2) Jun 08, 2012
And i think another point can also be mentioned..
if little tiny shrubs, which have been little tiny shrubs for generations can suddenly grow into big trees, does this not prove evolution?
i could be wrong (and i am ready to be corrected) but if something has the chance to change and does change, right before our eyes does it not show that those evolutionary theorists were right?

or have i got it wrong?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Jun 08, 2012

ParkerTard would rather not have people see the ocean temperature increase.

Here it is....

http://woodfortre...rom:1910

As the following graphic shows, the average temps for the 10 years surrounding 1930 are roughly -0.02C' while the average around 2011 is around 0.5C'.

This translates into a trend of roughly 0.65C' per century.

"2011 was .137C warmer than 1941.
And .176C colder than 1998." = ParkerTard

Parkertard just keeps lying and lying and lying and lying to support his failed conservative liedeology.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Jun 09, 2012
Which should tell you why tiny shrubs should never be elected to low office. They might become a failed president some day.

"if little tiny shrubs, which have been little tiny shrubs for generations can suddenly grow into big trees" - btb101
Skepticus
1 / 5 (5) Jun 10, 2012
War is really good for my business! My pro-AGW franchises are selling tons and tons of expesive energy-efficient air conditioners, hybrid cars and solar power to pro-GWers. My pro-GW franchises are selling tons and tons of heaters, SUVs,incandescent light bulbs, luxury yachts, personal jets to pro-AGWers. My fast food franchises are doing extremely well, the same goes for my Pharmacom divisions who make drugs to keep the obese, diabetic fast-food-fed customers base alive and thus growing. Keep fighting folks! I am making a ton of money every second, splendidly for my and my folks' lifetimes. When the market/planet goes to hell and most of you die, the rest will be so poor, sick, powerless and disorganized to do anything but be owned as slaves in my global mega-corporation empire! Keep dividing yourselves!
NotParker
1.4 / 5 (10) Jun 10, 2012
War is really good for my business! My pro-AGW franchises are selling tons and tons of expesive energy-efficient air conditioners


Did you know the amount of energy needed to warm Minnesotans in the winter is something like 10x as much as it take to air condition people in Alabama?

If global warming were happening it would save energy.
Skepticus
1.4 / 5 (9) Jun 10, 2012
War is really good for my business! My pro-AGW franchises are selling tons and tons of expesive energy-efficient air conditioners


Did you know the amount of energy needed to warm Minnesotans in the winter is something like 10x as much as it take to air condition people in Alabama?

If global warming were happening it would save energy.

Good point! But you forget I have OTHER franchises to sell heaters, too! Did you missed it? Either way, I win, and your divisive lot both lose.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
Percent of energy consumption for air conditioning (US Average)

1978 3 percent Space heating 66 percent
2005 8 percent Space heating 41 percent

Different states, different average temperatures, different economy, different level of education.

Did you know the amount of energy needed to warm Minnesotans in the winter is something like 10x as much as it take to air condition people in Alabama?" - RyggTard

Don't they still burn animal dung for heat in Alabama?

NotParker
1.6 / 5 (7) Jun 10, 2012
Percent of energy consumption for air conditioning (US Average)


41% for heating. 8% for A/C.

If the USA was warming, it would save a lot of energy.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
Insulation would save even more.

"41% for heating. 8% for A/C.
If the USA was warming, it would save a lot of energy." - ParkerTard
NotParker
1 / 5 (4) Jun 10, 2012
Percent of energy consumption for air conditioning (US Average)


41% for heating. 8% for A/C.

If the USA was warming, it would save a lot of energy.


And less people would die in the winter.

"Lends support to Deschênes and Moretti (2009) paper which estimates that migration from the Colder Northeast to Southern areas of the U.S.is responsible for 8%-15% of the total gains in life expectancy in the U.S. population from 1970 to 2000."

http://www.nipccr...1a3.html

WOW!

Skepticus
1 / 5 (2) Jun 11, 2012
Hallelujah! Keep arguing! Divided shall you all fall and I'd be your master in the end!