Arctic cap on course for record melt: US scientists

Aug 22, 2012 by Shaun Tandon
Ice melts next to the village of Ny-Aalesundin Norway in 2009. The Arctic ice cap is melting at a startlingly rapid rate and may shrink to its smallest-ever level within weeks as the planet's temperatures rise, US scientists said Tuesday.

The Arctic ice cap is melting at a startlingly rapid rate and may shrink to its smallest-ever level within weeks as the planet's temperatures rise, US scientists said Tuesday.

Researchers at the University of Colorado at Boulder said that the summer ice in the was already nearing its lowest level recorded, even though the summer melt season is not yet over.

"The numbers are coming in and we are looking at them with a sense of amazement," said Mark Serreze, director of the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the university.

"If the melt were to just suddenly stop today, we would be at the third lowest in the satellite record. We've still got another two weeks of melt to go, so I think we're very likely to set a new record," he told AFP.

The previous record was set in 2007 when the shrunk to 4.25 million square kilometers (1.64 million square miles), stunning scientists who had not forecast such a drastic melt so soon.

The Colorado-based center said that one potential factor could be an Arctic cyclone earlier this month. However, Serreze played down the effects of the and said that this year's melt was all the more remarkable because of the lack of special weather factors seen in 2007.

Serreze said that the extensive melt was in line with the , with the ice being hit by a of rising temperatures in the atmosphere and warmer oceans.

"The ice now is so thin in the spring just because of the general pattern of warming that large parts of the pack ice just can't survive the summer melt season anymore," he said.

Russia's Roshydromet environmental agency also reported earlier this month that the Arctic melt was reaching record levels. Several studies have predicted that the cap in the summer could melt completely in coming decades.

The thaw in the Arctic is rapidly transforming the geopolitics of the region, with the long forbidding ocean looking more attractive to the shipping and energy industries.

Five nations surround the Arctic Ocean -- Russia, which has about half of the coastline, along with Canada, Denmark, Norway and the -- but the route could see a growing number of commercial players.

The first ship from China -- the Xuelong, or Snow Dragon -- recently sailed from the Pacific to the Atlantic via the Arctic , cutting the distance by more than 40 percent.

Egill Thor Nielsson, an Icelandic scientist who participated in the expedition, said last week in Reykjavik that he expected China to be increasingly interested in the route as it was relatively easy to sail.

But the rapid melt affects local people's lifestyles and scientists warn of serious consequences for the rest of the planet. The serves a vital function by reflecting light and hence keeping the earth cool.

Serreze said it was possible that the rapid melt was a factor in severe storms witnessed in recent years in the United States and elsewhere as it changed the nature of the planet's temperature gradients.

The planet has charted a slew of record temperatures in recent years. In the continental United States, July was the hottest ever recorded with temperatures 3.3 degrees Fahrenheit (1.8 Celsius) higher than the average in the 20th century, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Most scientists believe that carbon emissions from industry cause global warming. Efforts to control the gases have encountered resistance in a number of countries, with some lawmakers in the United States questioning the science.

Explore further: The Gulf Stream kept going during the last Ice Age

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Recommended for you

NASA HS3 instrument views two dimensions of clouds

13 hours ago

NASA's Cloud Physics Lidar (CPL) instrument, flying aboard an unmanned Global Hawk aircraft in this summer's Hurricane and Severe Storm Sentinel, or HS3, mission, is studying the changing profile of the atmosphere ...

Research drones launched into Hurricane Edouard

15 hours ago

U.S. government scientists are launching winged drones into Hurricane Edouard, hoping to collect data that could help forecasters understand what makes some storms strengthen into monsters while others fade away.

User comments : 275

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

djr
3.4 / 5 (15) Aug 22, 2012
Odd!! - considering there has been no significant warming in the past 10 years! - just look at this graphic - taken from the home page of wood for trees - http://www.woodfo...60/trend

Notice the 1930's heat wave in there......

I wonder if we are ready to stop arguing about IF it is warming - and really start focusing on how we should be responding to the warming..
rubberman
3.1 / 5 (12) Aug 22, 2012
The problem with "we" as far as humanity is concerned, is that "we" don't all speak the same language or say the same thing. China will not stop until it is on par with the west as far as standards of living, India....they're trying as well. In the face of these 2 mammoth populations any cuts we (the west) make as far as emissions will be more offset by growth from these 2. When US emissions drop to a 20 year low yet globally they still outpace the previous year....let's not delay the response to the warming for too long.
gmurphy
3.3 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2012
@djr, wasn't sure if you were trolling or just being sarcastic :)
djr
3.3 / 5 (15) Aug 22, 2012
Sorry gmurphy - my post was aimed at the posters who keep repeating the claim that there has been no warming in the past 10 years. If you look at the link - you can see how clear the actual trend is.

rubber - I agree that we have immense barriers to overcome in terms of fashioning our response. Surely the first step is admitting the problem? I believe the solutions are waiting to be found - just look at this one program - http://www.greenp...-hunger/
axemaster
3 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2012
@rubberman, I wouldn't go blaming China and India when the USA has yet to do anything meaningful itself. Not that any of that matters at this point anyway. We'll be heading above 3C increase, and my life is going to be "interesting" as a result.
rubberman
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2012
@rubberman, I wouldn't go blaming China and India when the USA has yet to do anything meaningful itself. Not that any of that matters at this point anyway. We'll be heading above 3C increase, and my life is going to be "interesting" as a result.


No blame casting here. Just an observation. And yours is correct too, the industrialized nations haven't done anything to effectively curtail emissions either. I think all of our lives will be more "interesting" over the next 15-20 years....
rubberman
3.8 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2012
djr - great link! It's nice to see a well thought out multi-pronged attack solving multiple problems. Admitting the existence of a problem is a necessary first step. Sadly it appears that every one won't be admitting THIS particular problem until the observed evidence is undeniable...which we both know is way too late.
Jeddy_Mctedder
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2012
I wonder if we are ready to stop arguing about IF it is warming - and really start focusing on how we should be responding to the warming..


agreed----we should accelerate it. the faster the arctic melts, the faster the water can begin absorbing heat and transporting it around the globe. if we are going to make russia northern europe canada and north america arable to yield more crops . otherwise, i think we will find a way to starve china and india because they rely on us to feed their exploding populations.
Modernmystic
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 22, 2012
Sadly it appears that every one won't be admitting THIS particular problem until the observed evidence is undeniable...which we both know is way too late.


Quite possible.

I submit that it is in fact possible to get some softening on the other side. You're NOT going to do it with data, facts, charts or graphs though. They're not blind, they're afraid. They're afraid of the solutions being proposed. My suggestion is to move away from political proposals and towards realistic technical solutions. The more apolitical you make the solutions the "safer" they are for the other side to accept and consequently accept the reality of the problem.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Aug 22, 2012
@rubberman, I wouldn't go blaming China and India when the USA has yet to do anything meaningful itself. Not that any of that matters at this point anyway. We'll be heading above 3C increase, and my life is going to be "interesting" as a result.


Why not?

Is it really your moral position that in order for a criminal to be wrong for what they're doing they have to wait for all other criminals to be equally as bad?

What about the other way around?

Does criminal culpability operate as a communal agent? Yes this question is a trap...

djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2012
if we are going to make russia northern europe canada and north america arable to yield more crops .

What is your basis for suggesting that a warmer globe will net an increase in crop yields? Is it just a personal belief - or do you have research and data that would support the premise? Surely one of the big issues we face in general is unintended consequences. I am not sure how we avoid unintended consequences - as the climate system is so complex. But surely trying to base decisions on research, and modeling, is at least a start. Are you sure the unintended consequences of your suggested acceleration will not be net reduction in crop yields?
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (11) Aug 22, 2012
Wait for it . . . There's gold in the arctic waiting to be picked up off the ground.

"The polar bears will be fine." - Freeman Dyson (is much smarter than you)
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 22, 2012
There is very little "ground" in the arctic.

Mostly permafrost and bare rock scraped clean by millennial ice.

"There's gold in the arctic waiting to be picked up off the ground." - ShooTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (10) Aug 22, 2012
Like most denialist Tards, Jeddy is blissfully ignorant of the fact that there is virtually no soil in northern Canada or Russia.

It has been viryually all scraped off by glaciers and moved temperate regions far to the south, that in the case of the U.S. are now reverting to desert.

Perhaps if Americans could manage to find their own country on a map of the world they would have a better appreciation for basic grade school geology.

"the faster the water can begin absorbing heat and transporting it around the globe. if we are going to make russia northern europe canada and north america arable to yield more crops." - JeddyTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (6) Aug 22, 2012
Then bullets and clubs will be used.

"You're NOT going to do it with data, facts, charts or graphs though." - Mystic

Those who will not submit to reality will submit to death.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (13) Aug 23, 2012
Odd!! - considering there has been no significant warming in the past 10 years!
It's not odd at all. Northern ice melt is more a product of weather, than global temperature. The proof is in the global records.

Globally, this July was the fourth warmest recorded since 1880. High, to be sure, but not exactly a record. And January to July 2012 was only the 10th warmest such period on record since 1880.

And, the Antarctic was rather chilly, being the 33rd warmest July since 1880 (if the Arctic melt is proof the globe is warming, what's this indicate?)

http://www.ncdc.n...l/2012/7

So, you're crowing over a weather phenomenon, nothing more. And as you so gleefully crow, the global climate continues to exhibit no global warming since at least 2002. Even the most biased temperature index shows a gradual temperature decline:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

So, is it about "global" temperatures, or not?

djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2012
So, is it about "global" temperatures, or not?

Yes - it is about global temperature - look this graph is right off the home page of your beloved woodfortrees - can you see the global temperature graph - it is pretty clear. http://www.woodfo...60/trend

I am not crowing - I am concerned about the state of our planet - and yes it is personal - I want us to be intelligent.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2012
Hey Uba - want to see how much warming there has been in the last 4 years? http://www.woodfo...08/trend That is exactly the same data set you chose - just picked a different start year - see how cherry picking works? I guess 4 years trumps 10 years right?
SteveS
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2012

http://www.ncdc.n...l/2012/7

January to July 2012 was only the 10th warmest such period on record since 1880.

the global climate continues to exhibit no global warming since at least 2002.


From your source Jan to Jul

1st warmest 2005
2nd warmest 2010
4th warmest 2003

All since 2002

Go back a little further

3rd warmest 1998
5th warmest 2002
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 23, 2012
"It's not odd at all. Northern ice melt is more a product of weather, than global temperature." If ice melt is a product of weather - how do you explain the ongoing melting of the ice sheets? Wouldn't you expect to see a more random pattern?

http://nsidc.org/...ires.png
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2012
it is about global temperature - look this graph is right off the home page of your beloved woodfortrees - can you see the global temperature graph - it is pretty clear.
Hmm... there seems to be some confusion on your part as to what constitutes the last 10 years. Here, let me help:

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

I am not crowing - I am concerned about the state of our planet - and yes it is personal - I want us to be intelligent.
Then why aren't you happy warming has stalled out for at least the last 10 years? Isn't this good news?

Seriously, what is it you really want? What would you consider a "win" for this argument?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Aug 23, 2012
Hey Uba - want to see how much warming there has been in the last 4 years? http://www.woodfo...08/trend That is exactly the same data set you chose - just picked a different start year - see how cherry picking works? I guess 4 years trumps 10 years right?

LOL. You still can't count to four! That's more than four and a half years!

Even though it's irrelevant to my claim, just for kicks and giggles, here's the last four years of the same data:

http://www.woodfo....6/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2012
From your source Jan to Jul

1st warmest 2005
2nd warmest 2010
4th warmest 2003

All since 2002

Go back a little further

3rd warmest 1998
5th warmest 2002
So? All you're doing is proving my point. There's been no significant global warming for at least the last 10 years. I never claimed it didn't warm previously.

However, temperatures have been trending downwards:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Aug 23, 2012
If ice melt is a product of weather - how do you explain the ongoing melting of the ice sheets? Wouldn't you expect to see a more random pattern?


So only the Northern Hemisphere counts now?

Antarctic ice has been trending upward. And, I never claimed we aren't in a relatively warm period, only that global warming appears to have stalled out for at least the last 10 years (in spite of rising CO2).

Why isn't this good news?
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2012
Seriously, what is it you really want? What would you consider a "win" for this argument?

That's a great question - looking at the bigger picture - the win for me is when we as a species make a priority of behaving intelligently. I see several barriers to this happening - but in general - religion, ideology, and group identity issues seem to be the most obvious. So you and Parker and Rygg feel the need to spam every article that mentions global warming - with your anti science dogma. So a win for me would be if you would stop it - let the scientists do their job - and let the chips fall where they may. Your need to deny reality is in there some place. You see the data shows that in line with scientific understanding - our globe is warming - and has been doing so for 100 years. Here is the data. http://www.woodfo...60/trend cont
djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Aug 24, 2012
cont. The 4 year vs. 4.5 year argument above serves as a perfect example of how we can prove what ever we want by cherry picking the data. So the honest approach is to look at as long a data trend as we can. I endorse science and rationalism - which is why I read sites like physorg - and I try to do a little bit to counter anti science rubbish. So a win for me would be to hear you say "yes - if you look at the 100 year trend - our globe is clearly warming - which should give us cause to sit up and pay attention - because it may indicate a serious problem - so I better shut up - and let the scientists figure out what is going on."
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2012
"So only the Northern Hemisphere counts now?"

Well-you completely missed the point - which was - if you want to claim that ice melt is a function of weather - not climate - then you would not expect to see a pretty clear - downward trend. It would jump around a lot more. As the link I provided shows - arctic ice melt has been in one direction - down - which would not be consistent with ascribing it to weather.

Also - both poles are experiencing warming - here is a reference. http://www.ksl.co...21829528
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2012
"Then why aren't you happy warming has stalled out for at least the last 10 years?"

Well - I don't accept your premise that it has stalled out - and that premise is not supported by the data. However - even if there were a plateau - why do you not understand that climate is measured over multiple decades? If you look back over the data for the last 100 years - you can find times when there appears to be a plateau. This is noise - it does not detract from the bigger picture - the long term trend of warming. I conclude from your constant need to raise this issue - that you either don't understand the big picture - or more likely - you have an ideological ax to grind - and care nothing for truth or science.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2012
Why is UbVonTard still using Hadcrut3 when it is obsolete, and has been replaced with Hadcrut4 which now includes polar regions that were not included before?

Here is the last 10 years that include polar warming...

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

The trend is up, up, up..

"Hmm... there seems to be some confusion on your part as to what constitutes the last 10 years. Here, let me help:" - UbVonTard

Why is UbVonTard so keen to tell lies of omission?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 24, 2012
Nope. Ice volume is down both at the North and South poles.

As to ice area, it is trending down globally as well.

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

"Antarctic ice has been trending upward. " - UbVonTard

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (9) Aug 24, 2012
There is no statistically significant warming trend over any 10 year period as all 10 year periods are dominated by weather noise rather than climate signal.

You have been told this at least half a dozen times. Yet you persist in making your idiotic and ignorant pronouncements about 10 year trends.

You appear to be incapable of learning.

"There's been no significant global warming for at least the last 10 years." - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
the win for me is when we as a species make a priority of behaving intelligently. I see several barriers to this happening - but in general - religion, ideology, and group identity issues seem to be the most obvious.
Hmm... no mention made of the environment. So it really isn't about global warming to you at all then, now is it? It's about social/political control.

Why is it the worst students of history and social studies think it is they who have all the right answers?

What makes you think spamming this science site with your naive political agenda is going to change society?

let the scientists do their job
I'm happy to let them do their job. I'm not happy they've chosen to take on the additional task of social engineering.

our globe is warming - and has been doing so for 100 years.
For at least the last 10 of those 100 years, it hasn't. Here is the data:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
The 4 year vs. 4.5 year argument above serves as a perfect example of how we can prove what ever we want by cherry picking the data.
No it doesn't. It proves the overall trend for the last 4.5 years is up, but the last 4 years is down. Neither mean anything in the context of: "The world hasn't been warming for at least the last 10 years."

So the honest approach is to look at as long a data trend as we can.
Again, you do know the world has been much warmer than today at times, right? So now you're ready to admit the long term trend is for cooling?

I endorse science and rationalism
Then why do you deny both science and rationalism in favor of an unworkable and unrealistic political agenda?

if you look at the 100 year trend - our globe is clearly warming
You mean it has warmed, but currently it isn't warming.

because it may indicate a serious problem
Or, it may generally be a good thing.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
so I better shut up - and let the scientists figure out what is going on.
Please do.

I work for one of the most prestigious and forward thinking proactive environmental protection organizations in the world. What do you do?

if you want to claim that ice melt is a function of weather - not climate - then you would not expect to see a pretty clear - downward trend.
Obviously, I do expect the minimum to be smaller than the 20th century average, as the world did warm in the previous decades. As for now, it's holding its own. We're nowhere near having an ice free Arctic summer.

It would jump around a lot more. As the link I provided shows - arctic ice melt has been in one direction - down - which would not be consistent with ascribing it to weather.
Actually, for the past 10 years it's been surprisingly steady:

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

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
both poles are experiencing warming
Hardly.

"...the Russian Arctic and Antarctic Research Institute (AARI) of Hydromet, reported on the downward trend recorded temperature in Antarctica. According to Vyacheslav Martyanov, the last few years, measurements of air temperature at the Russian Vostok Station is fixed steadily lowering the overall temperature of the air over Antarctica, which is not evidence of global warming, but rather, the beginning of the Ice Age.

...so in the next few years, scientists will fix in Antarctica a new low temperature record on Earth."

http://hainanwel....ase.html

You really should get your facts straight before you proclaim, "and I try to do a little bit to counter anti science rubbish."

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
I don't accept your premise that it has stalled out - and that premise is not supported by the data.
That you don't accept the data, makes the data no less certain.

However - even if there were a plateau - why do you not understand that climate is measured over multiple decades?
It's measured in any increment of time you like.

If you look back over the data for the last 100 years - you can find times when there appears to be a plateau. This is noise - it does not detract from the bigger picture - the long term trend of warming.
Actually it does, as during those plateaus, the world wasn't warming.

I conclude from your constant need to raise this issue - that you either don't understand the big picture - or more likely - you have an ideological ax to grind - and care nothing for truth or science.
You've all but just admitted, this description fits you! You don't give a rat's ass about the environment. You're seeking social/political control.
kochevnik
1.3 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2012
The implication behind this is all too clear: At least seven billion people need to die so that a modern lifestyle can be enjoyed by the survivors. Dino infrastructure can be converted to renewables but that will still require a lifetime, in which the seven billion cannot be sustained. If peak oil is comes to term, then the seven billion will not have food in any case.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
The data has been presented to you over and over.

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

"That you don't accept the data, makes the data no less certain." - UbVonTard

You simply aren't capable of comprehending it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
Why is UbVonTard still using Hadcrut3 when it is obsolete, and has been replaced with Hadcrut4 which now includes polar regions that were not included before?
As has already been explained to you, the HadCRUT4 data was specifically manipulated to show excess global warming, and even the HadCRUT website states to use HadCRUT3 data:

"Recent temperature data is available in the CRUTEM3 dataset."

http://www.metoff...crutem4/

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

Why is VendiTard so keen to tell lies of omission?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy, but you have been told at least a dozen times that climate is defined over periods of 30 years or more. Shorter periods are called weather.

"It's measured in any increment of time you like." - UbVontard

If your IQ is so low that you can't remember the definition of Climate, then why should anyone take anything else you claim seriously?

djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
"It's measured in any increment of time you like." So if it is warmer today than it was yesterday - I can conclude that the climate is warming?

I work for one of the most prestigious and forward thinking proactive environmental protection organizations in the world. What do you do?

Market gardener by day - sign language interpreter by night. What does that have to do with anything? Are you saying I should defer to your superior knowledge because you work for a prestigious organization? Have you published papers on climate change? I would be interested in reading them.

"You're seeking social/political control" That is an interesting conclusion you make. I admit to participating in the dialogue about issues such as science, and climate change - as I would like to see us progress as a species. You appear to me to have an anti science agenda - and to need to push it on the comments section of Physorg - are we not very similar? cont.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2012
I see, so it's all part of the conspiratorial among the worlds scientists to overthrow the world.

Other than your insane ranting, do you have any evidence to support your lunatic claim?

"As has already been explained to you, the HadCRUT4 data was specifically manipulated to show excess global warming," - UbVonTard

The fact is, Hadcrut4 includes polar regions that were not included in Hadcrut3. And since the polar regions are warming very fast compared to the rest of the world, the global temperatures are higher in Hadcrut4 compared to 3.

Can you tell us why you continue to use dishonestly Hadcrut3 as a global temperature knowing full well that it ignores major parts of the Arctic and Antarctic?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
Nope. Ice volume is down both at the North and South poles.

As to ice area, it is trending down globally as well.

http://arctic.atm...rend.jpg
Nitwit. That's a sea ice area chart, not volume chart.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
UbVonTards source including most of the Arctic/Antarctic.

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

UbVonTard's plot which excludes major regions of the Arctic/Antarctic and which he dishonestly misrepresents as global.

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

Why is UbVonTard constantly caught telling lies?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
The data has been presented to you over and over.

You simply aren't capable of comprehending it.
Still having trouble understanding what constitutes the last 10 years, are we?

Here, let me help:

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

djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
"As for now, it's holding its own." So what accounts for the fact that we just broke the record in terms of ice extent? If as you claim - ice melt is a function of weather - and not climate - How do you account for this continued melt - that looks like we will be ice free in the summer by 2030? http://www.bloomb...sts.html
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
The evolution of Arctic Ice volume is shown here. http://psc.apl.wa...ntV2.png In addition Antarctic ice volume is declining by somewhere around 50 cubic kilometers per year. "Nitwit. That's a sea ice area chart, not volume chart." - UbVonTard

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
No it doesn't. It proves the overall trend for the last 4.5 years is up, but the last 4 years is down. Neither mean anything in the context of: "The world hasn't been warming for at least the last 10 years."

And I would extend that argument - and say that your harping on the last 10 years means nothing in the context of "the earth has been on a steady warming trend for the last 100 years".
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
Sorry, but you have been told at least a dozen times that climate is defined over periods of 30 years or more. Shorter periods are called weather.
Sorry Tard Boy, but you have been told at least a dozen times that, "The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) glossary definition of climate is:

Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the "average weather," or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period ranging from months to thousands or millions of years."

If your IQ is so low that you can't remember the definition of Climate, then why should anyone take anything else you claim seriously?
djr
4.2 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
Again, you do know the world has been much warmer than today at times, right? So now you're ready to admit the long term trend is for cooling?

Sure - and what does that mean for us at this point in time? Time scale is of course critically important in terms of identifying trends. Looking at the last 5 million years - definitely puts us in a downward trend http://en.wikiped...ange.png

If you look at the last .5 million years - the trend is very different. http://climate.na...vidence/

So - as I suspect you know - it depends on your choice of time scale. What is most interesting to me - is that it is the scientists who have given us all of this very sophisticated historical data. It seems that you are willing to use their data to try to support your ideological position - but then attack them as fraudsters when their concerns do not jive with your agenda. Perhaps I am wrong - it just seems to me you want your cake - and to eat it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
"It's measured in any increment of time you like." So if it is warmer today than it was yesterday - I can conclude that the climate is warming?
Okay wiseguy, "from months to thousands of millions of years."

Market gardener by day - sign language interpreter by night. What does that have to do with anything?
It has to do with your being a hypocrite.

That is an interesting conclusion you make. I admit to participating in the dialogue about issues such as science, and climate change - as I would like to see us progress as a species.
Liar. That's not what you said.

You appear to me to have an anti science agenda - and to need to push it on the comments section of Physorg
Actually I have a strong science agenda, and I enjoy pointing out bad applications of science.

are we not very similar?
Not even close.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
Once again you have dishonestly selected as your global "trend" a data set that excludes large regions of the Arctic and Antarctic.

When they are included your cooling trend turns out to be a warming trend.

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

"Still having trouble understanding what constitutes the last 10 years, are we?" - UbVonTard

other than showing yourself to be spectacularly dishonest, do you actually believe your continual stream of lies is accomplishing anything?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
The fact is, Hadcrut4 includes polar regions that were not included in Hadcrut3. And since the polar regions are warming very fast compared to the rest of the world, the global temperatures are higher in Hadcrut4 compared to 3.
As has already been shown to you, the Antarctic is seeing record cold.

Can you tell us why you continue to use dishonestly Hadcrut3 as a global temperature knowing full well that it ignores major parts of the Arctic and Antarctic?
Because that's what the HadCRUT4 website says to do? Are you not reading? Am I expecting to much of your chatbot programming?

djr
5 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2012
On the distinction between weather and climate - again we often come down to who you listen to. This is from the NASA web site - "Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region." - http://www.nasa.g...ther.htm

How do you distinguish between weather and climate ubavon?
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
"It has to do with your being a hypocrite."

Please explain what exactly you feel defines me as a hypocrite. I feel I am very consistent in my position of advocating for science and rationalism.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
VendiTard's biased plot which he dishonestly misrepresents as showing the last 10 years:

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

Ubavontuba's source which includes all of the last 10 years:

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

Why is VendiTard constantly caught telling lies?

djr
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 25, 2012
"Liar. That's not what you said." Really - what exactly did I say?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
"As for now, it's holding its own." So what accounts for the fact that we just broke the record in terms of ice extent?
Olympic athletes break records all the time. Does that mean the human race as a species is getting faster?

If as you claim - ice melt is a function of weather - and not climate - How do you account for this continued melt - that looks like we will be ice free in the summer by 2030?
That's a "boogeyman" claim, used to frighten small children. As has already been shown to you, the low exent this year has nothing to do with global temperatures, but rather is a result of regional weather patterns.

And even if it does become ice free, so what?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
No it doesn't. It proves the overall trend for the last 4.5 years is up, but the last 4 years is down. Neither mean anything in the context of: "The world hasn't been warming for at least the last 10 years."

And I would extend that argument - and say that your harping on the last 10 years means nothing in the context of "the earth has been on a steady warming trend for the last 100 years".
100 years is even less relevant than the 4.5 and 4 year data sets. The context of my claim IS the last 10 years. Anything else is out of context.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
The only people we see talking about social/political control are denialist cowards like yourself who object to reality because it conflicts with your own petty personal political ideology.

"You don't give a rat's ass about the environment. You're seeking social/political control. - UbVonTard

You are no different to the cowardly vermin who came before you and insisted that the earth was the center of the universe, who claimed that Jupiter had no moons and who refused to look through telescopes to see their existence.

History is full of anti-science vermin like yourself who place ideology over reality.

Your kind will be eradicated.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
it is the scientists who have given us all of this very sophisticated historical data. It seems that you are willing to use their data to try to support your ideological position - but then attack them as fraudsters when their concerns do not jive with your agenda.
I attack them as fraudsters when they make bogus claims which are not supported by the data. For instance, it's commonly claimed the rise in global temperatures is accelerating, when the temperatures are doing just the opposite.

Perhaps I am wrong - it just seems to me you want your cake - and to eat it.
Yes, you are wrong.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
Once again you have dishonestly selected as your global "trend" a data set that excludes large regions of the Arctic and Antarctic.

When they are included your cooling trend turns out to be a warming trend.

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


Still having trouble understanding what constitutes the last 10 years, are we? Here's the 10 year trend:

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

other than showing yourself to be spectacularly dishonest, do you actually believe your continual stream of lies is accomplishing anything?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
UbVonTard can't even honestly quote IPCC AR4 without engaging in dishonest selective editing.

From IPCC AR4, Synthesis Report, Appendix 3

Climate
-------
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the average weather, or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period for averaging these variables is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization. The relevant quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. In various parts of this report different averaging periods, such as a period of 20 years, are also used.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
On the distinction between weather and climate - again we often come down to who you listen to. This is from the NASA web site - "Some scientists define climate as the average weather for a particular region and time period, usually taken over 30-years. It's really an average pattern of weather for a particular region." - http://www.nasa.g...ther.htm

How do you distinguish between weather and climate ubavon?
Weather is what's happening now, and historically as measured in the short term (usually daily) increments. Climate is what you can expect based upon historical weather trends. Sometimes, you might talk about the summer climate in Paris, versus the winter climate (periods of a few months), or sometimes you might talk about geological epochs (millions of years). It's all a matter of context.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
"It has to do with your being a hypocrite."

Please explain what exactly you feel defines me as a hypocrite. I feel I am very consistent in my position of advocating for science and rationalism.
But you already admitted, for you it's about social/political control, not science.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
"Liar. That's not what you said." Really - what exactly did I say?
You said:
"the win for me is when we as a species make a priority of behaving intelligently. I see several barriers to this happening - but in general - religion, ideology, and group identity issues seem to be the most obvious."

I see no mention of science or environmental concern. You just want social/political control. you want to decide for everyone what constitutes "intelligent behavior."

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
30 years is chosen by the WMO because that period offers a statistically robust measure of average weather trends on a scale that is significant to mankind.

Contrary to UbVonTard's ignorant assertion, Weather averaged over a month has no statistical relevance to global climate change since weather over a month is dominated by seasonal effects.

Weather averaged over a year on the other hand suffers from temporary fluctuations in the jet stream and ocean circulation patterns.

Weather averaged over a decade suffers from contamination from longer period ocean circulation patterns, some contamination from the 11 year solar cycle, and the effects of individual volcanoes.

The WMO uses 30 year period to define global climate since the above effects are largely averaged out.

UbVonTard's continual use of time periods shorter than this is an childishly ignorant attempt to assert short term fluctuations in place of long term climate change, as has been easily demonstrated by showing how cont.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
The only people we see talking about social/political control are denialist cowards like yourself who object to reality because it conflicts with your own petty personal political ideology.
LOL. Says the socialist twit who's always denigrating anyone who disagrees with him.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
his dishonest claims of "trend" vanish when data sets of slightly different lengths are used.

In order to be statistically significant a real "trend" must reflect the data over arbitrarily chosen endpoints that keep the data set approximately fixed in time and duration.

UbVonTard and the other dishonest Cherry Pickers are constantly found to be using data sets and start and stop data points that are specifically chosen to provide numbers that they find politically acceptable, but which in fact grotesquely misrepresent the real statistical trends.

As Denialist Conservatives, Dishonesty is always their goal.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
Since my training is in science, I don't tolerate liars.

"Says the socialist twit who's always denigrating anyone who disagrees with him." - UbVonTard

And you are found to be emitting a continual stream of lies, as we continually expose.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a perpetual and congenital liar.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
UbVonTard can't even honestly quote IPCC AR4 without engaging in dishonest selective editing.
I edited it for length, but the part I used covers all the relevant information. I've also often used:

"Climate ...is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period. The standard averaging period is 30 years, but other periods may be used depending on the purpose."

http://en.wikiped...finition

But you ignore that one too.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
Your continual stream of dishonesty does not constitute "intelligent behavior" no matter how you may wish to claim it does.

Intelligence - as has been proven though all of human history - is found in the scientific method of observing nature and accepting the reality of those observations.

Ignorance on the other hand comes in many forms, but the form you most commonly demonstrate is your insistence upon dishonestly misrepresenting observation through statistical fraud, in your continually failed attempt to force nature to conform to your sad personal political ideology.

"I see no mention of science or environmental concern. You just want social/political control. you want to decide for everyone what constitutes "intelligent behavior."" - UbVonTard

Dishonest, unthinking, vermin like yourself imprisoned Galileo for teaching that the earth was not the center of the universe, and have been the cause of most human suffering during the ascent of man.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
And omitted those parts that you found did not mesh with your ideological expectations of what the definition should be.

"I edited it for length," - UbVonTard

You layer one lie of omission, upon another, upon another, upon another.

You are mentally diseased, filth.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
From your own reference which you also edit, and then claim I ignore.

"Climate (from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period.[3] The standard averaging period is 30 years,but other periods may be used depending on the purpose." - UbVonTard

This is a far cry from your dishonest claim that...

"It's "measured in any increment of time you like." - UbVonTard

I don't remember ever seeing a post in which you haven't told a lie.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
30 years is chosen by the WMO because that period offers a statistically robust measure of average weather trends on a scale that is significant to mankind.
Well, 10 years is pretty significant to me.

Contrary to Uba's assertion, Weather averaged over a month has no statistical relevance to global climate change since weather over a month is dominated by seasonal effects.
Liar. This is a strawman. When did I ever claim, "Weather averaged over a month has a statistical relevance to global climate change."

The WMO uses 30 year period to define global climate since the above effects are largely averaged out.
Which has no relevance to my assertion: There's been no significant global warming for at least the last 10 years.

his dishonest claims of "trend" vanish when data sets of slightly different lengths are used.
And yours would vanish in thousand year trends. So? The period under discussion is the last 10 years. Any other data set is irrelevant.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
That is YOUR ASSERTION. And that assertion was denied by the person you accused.

"But you already admitted, for you it's about social/political control, not science." - UbVonTard

Yet you now claim that the denial of your assertion was an admission that your assertion was correct.

And that is another Lie from you.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2012
In order to be statistically significant a real "trend" must reflect the data over arbitrarily chosen endpoints that keep the data set approximately fixed in time and duration.
Right. The last 10 years is quite easily defined and understood, even by children. Why is this so difficult for you?

Uba (is) using data sets and start and stop data points that are specifically chosen to provide numbers that they find politically acceptable, but which in fact grotesquely misrepresent the real statistical trends.
This is a lie. I specifically chose a data set which defines the current situation. Currently, there's been no global warming for at least the last 10 years. Why does this annoy you so? Shouldn't you be celebrating?

As Denialist Conservatives, Dishonesty is always their goal.
Well, being somewhat liberal, I wouldn't know. But it certainly seems to be your goal.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
But apparently not 11 years or 9 years, or 14 years...

14 years

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

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

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

Or 3 years
http://www.woodfo...11/trend

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

"Well, 10 years is pretty significant to me." - UbVonTard

No one cares what a chronic liar claims to find personally significant.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2012
Since my training is in science, I don't tolerate liars.
Then you must truly hate yourself.

And you are found to be emitting a continual stream of lies, as we continually expose.
What lies? When have you exposed anything I said as being factually incorrect? That you keep trying to change the facts to suit your own lies is irrelevant.

The widely publicized scientifically accumulated data I'm using clearly shows global cooling for the last 10 years. Will you admit this to be true, or will you lie about it?

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a perpetual and congenital liar.
Ah, so you are a conservative then. Is that it?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.1 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2012
You selected a data set that omits large portions of the Arctic and Antarctic.

"This is a lie. I specifically chose a data set which defines the current situation. " - UbVonTard

That fact alone makes your claim above just another lie on your part.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
You lie so frequently that you no longer even recognize that you are doing it.

"When have you exposed anything I said as being factually incorrect?" - UbVonTard

More evidence of you are mentally diseased.

Lying by omission

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
Your lie is in representing the data set that you are using as global when in fact it omits large regions of the Arctic and Antarctic.

"The widely publicized scientifically accumulated data I'm using clearly shows global cooling for the last 10 years." - UbVonTard

This was stated clearly to you on multiple occasions, yet you continue with the same dishonest misrepresentation.

In short, you are a liar.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Aug 25, 2012
Intelligence - as has been proven though all of human history - is found in the scientific method of observing nature and accepting the reality of those observations.

Ignorance on the other hand comes in many forms, but the form you most commonly demonstrate is your insistence upon dishonestly misrepresenting observation through statistical fraud, in your continually failed attempt to force nature to conform to your sad personal political ideology.
Then why won't you accept the accumulated data from countless scientists these past 10 years? I'm sure if this same data set showed warming, you'd accept it, wouldn't you?

Dishonest, unthinking, vermin like yourself imprisoned Galileo for teaching that the earth was not the center of the universe, and have been the cause of most human suffering during the ascent of man.
No, that would be science deniers, like yourself. you don't like the facts, so you go to great ends to deny and obfuscate the facts.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
And omitted those parts that you found did not mesh with your ideological expectations of what the definition should be.
Nope. Every relevant time period fits in the portion I provided. And I've provided other definitions which discuss various time periods too. You just ignore them all because they don't suit your agenda.

You layer one lie of omission, upon another, upon another, upon another.

You are mentally diseased, filth.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012

http://www.realcl...ure4.jpg

"As has already been shown to you, the Antarctic is seeing record cold." = UbVonTard

And once again you are exposed as a congenital liar.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2012
From your own reference which you also edit, and then claim I ignore.

"Climate (from Ancient Greek klima, meaning inclination) is commonly defined as the weather averaged over a long period.[3] The standard averaging period is 30 years,but other periods may be used depending on the purpose." - Uba

This is a far cry from your dishonest claim that...

"It's "measured in any increment of time you like." - Uba
According to this definition, whatever increment serves my purpose, is all I need.

I don't remember ever seeing a post in which you haven't told a lie.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
I do, but unlike you I don't dishonestly claim that it has any statistical relevance to climate.

"Then why won't you accept the accumulated data from countless scientists these past 10 years?" - UbVonTard

Lying appears to be your only method of argument.

"I'm sure if this same data set showed warming, you'd accept it, wouldn't you?" - UbVonTard

10 year trends have no climatological relevance.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
That is YOUR ASSERTION. And that assertion was denied by the person you accused.
Actually, no. He hasn't denied it.

Yet you now claim that the denial of your assertion was an admission that your assertion was correct.
This is gobbledygook What are you trying to say?

And that is another Lie from you.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Ah, so it is that you're a conservative then, right?

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
Since lying is your goal, then lying about the definition of climate is all you need to further your political ends.

"According to this definition, whatever increment serves my purpose, is all I need." - UbVonTard

But to be statistically relevant your time period must be chosen as defined earlier - so that small variations in the endpoints do not alter the trend.

In the case of your chosen period they do. And your insistence that this or that period is essential to your case is just more evidence of your dishonest cherry picking.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2012
But apparently not 11 years or 9 years, or 14 years...
Well... some datasets show no global warming for more than 15 years, but I use 10 years becasue all of the most widely used datasets show no global warming for at least 10 years.

No one cares what a chronic liar claims to find personally significant.
I'm sorry no one cares about your feelings.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
He did so in the very post you were responding to.

"Actually, no. He hasn't denied it." - UbVonTard

Which makes you a liar yet again.

Poor, mentally diseased UbVonTard.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2012
You selected a data set that omits large portions of the Arctic and Antarctic.
It's the most widely used and recognized dataset. But others show no global warming for at least the last 10 years as well. Here are the four leading datasets, combined (HADCRUT3, GISTEMP, UAH, and RSS):

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

"This is a lie. I specifically chose a data set which defines the current situation. " - Uba


That fact alone makes your claim above just another lie on your part.
Yeah? How so? Maybe you think I should lie and say it's been warming these past ten years? Sorry, I'm not like you (thankfully).

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
Yet another lie from UbVonTard as the following plot shows.

http://www.woodfo...08/trend

"Well... some datasets show no global warming for more than 15 years, but I use 10 years becasue all of the most widely used datasets show no global warming for at least 10 years."

"It's the most widely used and recognized dataset." - UbVonTard

GissTemp is more widely used. But HadCrut3 is the favorite of denialist liars such as yourself because it doesn't include in it's record large regions of the Arctic and Antarctic.

Those who make it their business to lie - people such as yourself - present Hadcrut3 as a representation of Global Temperaturs, but they are not.

And that documents yet another lie on your part.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
You lie so frequently that you no longer even recognize that you are doing it.

"When have you exposed anything I said as being factually incorrect?" - UbVonTard

More evidence of you are mentally diseased.

Lying by omission

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission.
This is a strawman and a red herring. You're simply trying to cover the fact that what I said was correct with a bunch of nonsense verbiage.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
Those who make it their business to lie - people such as yourself - present Hadcrut3 as a representation of Global Temperaturs, but they are not. And that documents yet another lie on your part.

"Yeah? How so?" - UbVontard

http://www.woodfo...08/trend
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
Your lie is in representing the data set that you are using as global when in fact it omits large regions of the Arctic and Antarctic.
The owners of the data represent it as global. Are you going to call them liars?

This was stated clearly to you on multiple occasions, yet you continue with the same dishonest misrepresentation.
It's the best, most complete data available.

In short, you are a liar.
Nope, you are. You tried to pass 8.5 year data sets off as 10 year data sets.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Why do you keep saying this about yourself?
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
Lying by omission

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission.

"This is a strawman and a red herring. You're simply trying to cover the fact that what I said was correct with a bunch of nonsense verbiage." - UbVonTard

http://en.wikiped...wiki/Lie
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
"As has already been shown to you, the Antarctic is seeing record cold." = Uba
http://www.realclimate.org/images//GergisFigure4.jpg
So old data that doesn't even go to the year 2000 is somehow supposed to disprove my data from 2012 now? LOL

And once again you are exposed as a congenital liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
First: The HadCrut data is not "owned" by anyone. Although access to some of it is covered by license from the originators.

Second: The MET office - originators of HadCrut do not claim that HadCrut3 is global. In fact they claim otherwise as the following video clearly shows.

http://www.youtub...embedded

"The owners of the data represent it as global. Are you going to call them liars?" - UbVonTard

So your claim is once again found to be false.

Once again you have been exposed as a liar.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2012
I do, but unlike you I don't dishonestly claim that it has any statistical relevance to climate.
Then openly and honestly admit it. There's been no significant global warming for at least 10 years. Say it, and be happy for it.

Why is lying your only method of argument.

10 year trends have no climatological relevance.
They're significant to me.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
Since lying is your goal, then lying about the definition of climate is all you need to further your political ends.
What lie, and what political ends? I've quoted multiple definitions of climate. Why have you never paid attention to them before?

But to be statistically relevant your time period must be chosen as defined earlier - so that small variations in the endpoints do not alter the trend.
What are you talking about. "Defined earlier" than what? It's my claim. I can choose any time period I want.

In the case of your chosen period they do. And your insistence that this or that period is essential to your case is just more evidence of your dishonest cherry picking.
No they don't. The time period isn't chosen based on what's happening at the ends. So since how they begin and end is random, it's irrelevant.

Deliberately choosing nuetral ends would be an alteration of the data.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.5 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
Your claim was "record cold" in the context of climate. Clearly the Antarctic is experiencing near record warming with regard to climate - exactly contrary to your lie.

Your statement is easily exposed as a lie by looking at GISS zonal means. Column 15 in the following data set.

Representative temps.

1904 = 14.00 minus 1.31
2011 = 14.00 plus .88
http://data.giss....onAnn.Ts dSST.txt

"So old data that doesn't even go to the year 2000 is somehow supposed to disprove my data from 2012 now?" - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2012
He did so in the very post you were responding to.
No, he didn't. He simply asked me to repeat what he said.

Which makes you a liar yet again.

Poor, mentally diseased VendiTard.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
Your claim is statistically false. As the following video clearly shows.

"There's been no significant global warming for at least 10 years." = UbVonTard

http://www.youtub...embedded

Your continual stream of lies will not alter reality, no matter how much your diseased mind tells you it will.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
He didn't do that either.

"No, he didn't. He simply asked me to repeat what he said." - UbVonTard

Is it even possible for you to write a single sentence that doesn't contain a lie?

So far the evidence is no.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2012
GissTemp is more widely used. But HadCrut3 is the favorite of denialist liars such as yourself because it doesn't include in it's record large regions of the Arctic and Antarctic.
Fine, here's GissTemp:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Those who make it their business to lie - people such as yourself - present Hadcrut3 as a representation of Global Temperaturs, but they are not.
Oh, so now you're calling all of those scientists liars now, too?

And that documents yet another lie on your part.
SteveS
5 / 5 (2) Aug 25, 2012
Arctic seaice August 1934

http://brunnur.ve...4_08.jpg

Arctic seaice August 2012

http://nsidc.org/...ires.png

djr
5 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
Wow - so much to respond to since I went to bed 5 hrs ago. Actually I am not going to spend my day on the computer - but I would like to ask you one question uba. The dialogue and name calling does not seem to me to be productive (hypocrite, liar etc.) - so I will just call it quits with this one question. You accuse me of wanting - and I quote "It's about social/political control." How do you draw this conclusion? - and exactly what kind of social/political control do you perceive I am trying to exercise? I told you that I engage in the debate on physorg because I am interested in science - and in advocating for rationalism and science. I have explained to you how it is that I perceive yourself and several others on this site as actively undermining science. You jump on almost every piece of scientific research about the environment, and aggressively refute the research. That smacks to me of an agenda. cont.
djr
5 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
cont. - I have been transparent about my agenda - again - I advocate for rationalism and science. I choose to try to be a little involved by participating in the dialogue. Politically I am pretty mixed up. I can see the benefits of an open, free society, with an active and transparent gvt that is held accountable by an educated/informed populace. So finally on this thread - why (with specifics) do you accuse me of being a hpyocrite, and of wanting "social/political" control. I am one citizen, and feel I am pretty consistent, and trying to be ethical in terms of staying educated, informed, and involved in the debate.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
Those who make it their business to lie - people such as yourself - present Hadcrut3 as a representation of Global Temperaturs, but they are not. And that documents yet another lie on your part.
But it is a global dataset.

"HadCRUT3 is a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies. Data are available for each month since January 1850, on a 5 degree grid. The dataset is a collaborative product of the Met Office Hadley Centre and the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia."

http://www.metoff...adcrut3/

So you owe me and all of these hardworking scientists multiple apologies.

No global warming for more than 15 years:

http://www.woodfo...97/trend
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2012
Lying by omission

Also known as a continuing misrepresentation, a lie by omission occurs when an important fact is left out in order to foster a misconception. Lying by omission includes failures to correct pre-existing misconceptions. When the seller of a car declares it has been serviced regularly but does not tell that a fault was reported at the last service, the seller lies by omission.
You mean like you do, by going to extreme lengths to omit the data of the last 10 years?

Venditard, all you do is lie and call names. Any sane person reading your garbage is offended by your lies and petulance. Grow up.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
First: The HadCrut data is not "owned" by anyone. Although access to some of it is covered by license from the originators.
Meaning, it is legally owned by them. That they dispense it freely doesn't mean they don't own it. Look up copyright law.

Second: The MET office - originators of HadCrut do not claim that HadCrut3 is global. In fact they claim otherwise as the following video clearly shows.
Liar. The title is: "Updates to HadCRUT global temperature dataset" and the first sentence spoken states: "The HadCRUT3 is the global temperature dataset..."

http://www.youtub...embedded

"The owners of the data represent it as global. Are you going to call them liars?" - UbVonTard

So your claim is once again found to be false.

Once again you have been exposed as a liar.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
Your claim was "record cold" in the context of climate. Clearly the Antarctic is experiencing near record warming with regard to climate - exactly contrary to your lie.
No, your data is about 15 years out of date. Currently, the Antarctic is experiencing virtually unprecedented cold trends. Even the scientists measuring it have expressed fears of an oncoming iceage.

Your statement is easily exposed as a lie by looking at GISS zonal means. Column 15 in the following data set.
As usual, your link was broken. When are you going to learn how to edit properly? Even children can do it.

Anyway, the Russians are measuring extreme cold. Here's the data:

"March was around minus 58 degrees Celsius, two degrees below normal temperature this time of year, and in April the average temperature was minus 67.8 degrees Celsius, which is 2.7 degrees below normal, ...so in the next few years, scientists will fix in Antarctica a new low temperature record on Earth.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
Your claim is statistically false. As the following video clearly shows.
Then how is it all of the major datasets combined show the same trend?

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Why aren't you happy about this?

Your continual stream of lies will not alter reality, no matter how much your diseased mind tells you it will.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
He didn't do that either.
Yes he did. In the post you're referring to he made no denial, and even if he had, it would only serve to make him a liar as he already spelled out his true intentions. He even admitted my conclusion was interesting.

Is it even possible for you to write a single sentence that doesn't contain a lie?

So far the evidence is no.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
The dialogue and name calling does not seem to me to be productive (hypocrite, liar etc.)
So why don't you (and especially VendiTard) knock it off?

You accuse me of wanting - and I quote "It's about social/political control." How do you draw this conclusion?
By your own statement describing your definition of a win for this argument. You knock virtually every ideal that defines society, but say nothing about the environment.

and exactly what kind of social/political control do you perceive I am trying to exercise?
From your writings, it appears you're leaning toward socialist/communist ideals. But the specifics don't matter. The scary part is you apparently think you might somehow change how people think on deeply personal levels. Any such attempted control impinges on personal freedoms and historically leads to mass slayings.

Like I said before:

Why is it the worst students of history and social studies think it is they who have all the right answers?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 25, 2012
I told you that I engage in the debate on physorg because I am interested in science
Then why do you constantly make personal attacks instead of simply discussing the science? Why can't you simply acknowledge that the global temperatures have been trending downward for at least the last 10 years?

and in advocating for rationalism
Whose ideal of rationalism?

I have explained to you how it is that I perceive yourself and several others on this site as actively undermining science.
In other words, you perpetrate personal attacks instead of discussing the actual science.

You jump on almost every piece of scientific research about the environment, and aggressively refute the research.
The only research I have aggressively refuted isn't even science. They're false claims which run contrary to the data. Science is all about the data.

You can't gather evidence the world is round, and declare (as a scientist) this proves it's flat, without someone noticing.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
That smacks to me of an agenda.
I have no agenda beyond exposing the truth.

I have been transparent about my agenda
Indeed. Frighteningly so.

I advocate for rationalism
Whose ideal of rationalism?

and science
Then why do you deny the validity of the science of the last 10 years?

I choose to try to be a little involved by participating in the dialogue.
Name calling and personal attacks are poor excuses for dialogue.

Politically I am pretty mixed up. I can see the benefits of an open, free society, with an active and transparent gvt that is held accountable by an educated/informed populace.
Grand ideals, indeed. So how does this jibe with wanting to control how people think about very personal ideals like religion, ideology, and association? Maybe you think it's logical to state; you can have all the freedom you want, except you can't believe in a deity? ...can't advocate? ...can't associate with so and so?

Read the U.S. Constitution.

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Aug 25, 2012
why (with specifics) do you accuse me of being a hpyocrite,
Do you not remember admitting to this yourself in regards to cherry-picking?

And, you go on and on accusing me of name-calling, when it is you who has been the far greater perpetrator.

And you go on and on about me being a "denialist" when you've gone to extreme lengths to deny the data of the last 10 years.

And... well, I guess that's enough to prove the point.

and of wanting "social/political" control.
You as much as admitted it when you described a win for you.

I am one citizen, and feel I am pretty consistent, and trying to be ethical in terms of staying educated, informed, and involved in the debate.
Well then, you need to adjust your actions to be more in line with your ideals.

Show some ethics. Admit I've been right all along about the last 10 years.

djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
Do you not remember admitting to this yourself in regards to cherry-picking? That was actually a misunderstanding on my part as to your use of quote marks - my understanding was that you were referring to yourself as a hypocrite - my mistake - my apologies. But the point still remains - what is the reason you would refer to me as a hypocrite?

I have in no way talked of wanting social/political control. You asked what would be a win in this situation for me - and I answered - but I in no way discussed any need that I have to exercise social/political control.

And, you go on and on accusing me of name-calling, when it is you who has been the far greater perpetrator.

We can go around in circles counting name calling. I am very new to this type of debate format, and admit to having been pulled in to an emotional level of debate - and resorting to name calling. For that I apologize - and intend to be very cautious from this point on to stay with a dispassionate discussion. cont.
djr
4.2 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
Well then, you need to adjust your actions to be more in line with your ideals.

My life - for me to live my way. I feel pretty consistent in terms of my position on the issues - and the charge of hypocrite seems like childish name calling to me.
djr
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
Show some ethics. Admit I've been right all along about the last 10 years.

Sure - a review of numerous data sets that look simply at the last 10 years - would indicate that temperatures have been at a plateau for that time period - you are correct. Below I would like to explain why I have a problem with you constantly using this piece of data to respond to articles talking about climate change issues. Cont.
djr
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 25, 2012
cont. - If you look at any long term climate data set http://www.woodfo...rom:1895 you see a clear trend of warming. This is in line with current scientific understanding of the climate - an understanding that is causing the scientists studying the problem to be concerned about the long term picture. Additional data seems to come in by the day (glacier melt, ice sheet melt, ocean rise etc.) to validate this understanding. There is clearly a community of folks who enjoy muddying the waters - and almost seem to delight in spreading confusion regarding a very complex issue. Thus we have an interesting situation - 98 % of Canadians believe the globe is warming http://www.huffin...860.html compared to just 62 % of Americans - http://thinkprogr...ratures/ cont.
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
That is a very interesting statistic - and I personally think it reflects a problem in the education level of Americans, their ability to think critically, and also factors such as a very superficial media that refuses to do a good job of covering issues. So - when I see a group of people who want to spam every article that mentions the climate with deceptive information - clearly designed to muddy the waters - cherry pick data - and spread confusion - I am trying to be a part of pushing back. If you look at one of those long term data sets - you will see periods of plateau. Some showing 1940 - 1980 as flat. But this does not detract from the big picture - that shows a long term temperature increase. So from where I sit - throwing out stuff like "there has been no warming in the past 10 years" seems to be to be part of that design to muddy the waters and spread confusion. So I am trying to be a part of the push back against that - I am at least transparent about my agenda.
baudrunner
1.9 / 5 (9) Aug 25, 2012
Global warming is a natural and cyclic event caused by a coincidence of precession and our position within the Earth's orbital path around the sun. That alone can cause increase in CO2 levels via natural pathways. If we were to insulate perfectly, ie: humanity no longer "contributes" to warming by artificially raising CO2 levels or even by the venting of stray heat into the atmosphere by activity, the process would still occur, and Arctic ice would continue to melt more and more.
runrig
4 / 5 (4) Aug 25, 2012
Global warming is a natural and cyclic event caused by a coincidence of precession and our position within the Earth's orbital path around the sun. That alone can cause increase in CO2 levels via natural pathways. If we were to insulate perfectly, ie: humanity no longer "contributes" to warming by artificially raising CO2 levels or even by the venting of stray heat into the atmosphere by activity, the process would still occur, and Arctic ice would continue to melt more and more.


True .... err, but not at present, as the Earth's orbital characteristics are in a "cold" phase.
djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 25, 2012
"Global warming is a natural and cyclic event" Would you have any sources to back up your claim? Are you talking Milankovitch cycles? These are 26,000 year, and 41,000 year cycles. Climate scientists are of course aware of these cycles - and understand that they do not account for the current warming trend. "Since the beginning of the industrial age, humankind has caused such a dramatic departure from the natural cycle, that it is hard to imagine anyone thinking that we are still in the natural cycle." From - http://ossfoundat...h-cycles
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
You are referring to Milankovitch cycles.

http://en.wikiped...h_cycles

In accordance with these cycles, the earth was slowly cooling in it's progression to the next ice age.

The following graphic shows the cooling quite nicely..

http://stevengodd...ng?w=640

However this cooling trend has been dramatically revered due to the warming caused by excessive CO2 emissions.

https://docs.goog...vbUxuNGc

"Global warming is a natural and cyclic event caused by a coincidence of precession and our position within the Earth's orbital path around the sun." - BaudTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
Over the last 24 hours I count you being caught telling around 2 dozen lies. Not least of which is in presenting HadCrut3 data as a global data set when it omits large regions of the Polar regions.

"Admit I've been right all along about the last 10 years." - UbVonTard

You have continued to repeat the lie multiple times after being corrected and exposed as a liar each time.

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2012
You were caught editing and altering the IPCC definition of "climate" from the IR4 synopsys report on climate.

You have been caught lying by falsely representing HadCrut3 as a global dataset.

You were caught lying when you claimed that climate is defined over any time period you wish.

You were caught lying when you claimed that 10 years was a sufficiently long time period to evaluate global climate.

You were caught lying when you claimed that Antarctic ice volume was increasing.

You were caught lying when you claimed that the Antarctic was experiencing record cold temperatures.

You were caught lying when you claimed "the HadCRUT4 data was specifically manipulated to show excess global warming"

You were caught lying when you stated...

"100 years is even less relevant than the 4.5 and 4 year data sets. " - UbVonTard

"I have no agenda beyond exposing the truth." - UbVonTard

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
You have been shown the following chart at least a half dozen times.

https://docs.goog...1VVFIdzQ

The red and green lines show the upper and lower confidence limits for the slope of the trend at a 2 sigma level of confidence.

The error in the slope is 10 times larger than the slope itself.

Your claim of a significant trend over the last 10 years is therfore a lie.

"Fine, here's GissTemp:
http://www.woodfo...02/trend" - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
UbVonTard has a long history of lying.

Earlier this spring, he claimed that that the U.S. winter was not unusual in it's warmth, when in fact it was a record warm winter.

In spring he claimed that there was no crop damage to mid April frosts, when in fact near 100% crop losses in apples, cherries, plumbs, peaches, and strawberries, in much of New York state and Southern Ontario.

UbVonTard then went on to claim that there was no drought developing in the U.S. grain belt. A drought that has been fully realized as the worst since the dust bowl and which has caused corn and soybean prices to near historic highs.

UbVonTard isn't the most prolific Liar on PhysOrg. ParkerTard and RyggTard are more prolific liars. But UbVonTard is giving them a run for their money.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
It looks like this year, Arctic ice area will be .4 million square kilometers less than the previous minimum ever recorded. A reduction of an additional 13 percent over the previous minimum.

Open water in the arctic means accelerated global warming and in addition it means greater variability in the offset of the polar vortex, which means greater weekly variability in the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere.

In addition there will be a continuing movement of temperature regions northward, with the mid U.S. reverting to the same arid conditions that are now experienced in Texas. The U.S. grain belt will continue to revert to desert.

"And even if it does become ice free, so what?" - UbVonTard

So much for your dishonest assertion ....

"I have no agenda beyond exposing the truth." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
UbVonTard caught in yet another lie.

"But it is a global dataset." - UbVonTard lying about HadCrut3

"But both HadCRUT3 and the NCDC data omit the Arctic and Antarctic regions." - http://www.skepti...p?n=1378
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
UbVonTard spends so much of his time lying that he can't even keep track of the lies he is telling.

His own graphic contradicts his own denialist lie.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

"No global warming for more than 15 years:" = UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
One of UbVonTard's many lies of omission is his refusal to state that the 2 sigma statistical error in his slope of the trend line is 10 times larger than the slope of the trend he is claiming.

The slope is

-.02'C per decade plus or minus 0.2'C per decade.

In other words the trend that he claims is significant in fact has no statistical significance at all.

"You mean like you do, by going to extreme lengths to omit the data of the last 10 years?" - UbVonTard

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
License is not ownership. That is why the word "license" is used and not the word "ownership".

"Meaning, it is legally owned by them." - UbVonTard

UbVonTard can't even figure that much out.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
UbVonTard is caught telling yet another lie.

"the first sentence spoken states: "The HadCRUT3 is the global temperature dataset..." - UbVonTard

The actual sentence is....
"The HadCrut is a global temperature dataset"

UbVonTard has dishonestly misquoted the text of the presentation and changed the word "hadcrut" used in the presentation to "hadcrut3" which is not stated.

This is similar to UbVonTard's dishonest modification of the IPCC's definition of "climate" that he used in another post.

Later he went on to explain that he modified that definition to reduce it's length. But in fact he removed those portions of the definition that contradicted his claimed definition of "climate"
Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
"... the results show that it's now warmer on James Ross Island now than it has been at any time during at least the last millennium (see Figure 2), and its unequivocal that this recent warmth led to the demise of ice shelves in the area over the last few decades. Moreover, the rate of recent century-scale warming is at the upper limit of rates in the pre-anthropogenic era: Mulvaney et al. find that the most recent warming is faster than 99.7% of any other given 100-year period in the last 2000 years." - RealClimate - Aug 23, 2012 - Eric J. Steig

"Currently, the Antarctic is experiencing virtually unprecedented cold trends." - UbVonTard

"Most people know that the Antarctic Peninsula is one of the most rapidly warming places on earth." - RealClimate Aug 23, 2012 - Eric J. Steig

Vendicar_Decarian
3.9 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
UbVonTard is caught telling yet another lie...

"Antarctic ice has been trending upward." - UbVonTard

"A new, high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica (1979–2010)" - GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L04501, 5 PP., 2012 doi:10.1029/2011GL050713

Key Points
Good agreement of modeled SMB field with observations

Very high accumulation in West Antarctica is confirmed

No significant SMB trend on Antarctica in period 1979–2010"
djr
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
"The scary part is you apparently think you might somehow change how people think on deeply personal levels."

Correct. Why else would I spend hours at a computer - trying to make an argument for a more intelligent world? Why else do we engage in dialogue? I have many friends who are deeply religious. They continually try to change how I think on a deeply personal level. I happily return the compliment. Every Sunday morning across the U.S. - tens of thousands of preachers stand in a pulpit and try to change how people think - on a deeply personal level.

"From your writings, it appears you're leaning toward socialist/communist ideals." I have no idea how you conclude this. I did state earlier that politically I am pretty mixed up. I certainly do not lean towards socialism or communism - I lean more towards advocating for personal liberties - although I recognize a limited role for government in protecting the common good. Do you recognize this role?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
That was actually a misunderstanding on my part as to your use of quote marks - my understanding was that you were referring to yourself as a hypocrite - my mistake - my apologies.
This is a bold faced lie. You clearly understood the context.

I have in no way talked of wanting social/political control.
Another bold faced lie. You specifically ignored environmental concerns in favor of talking about social/political control.

And, you go on and on accusing me of name-calling, when it is you who has been the far greater perpetrator.
Another bold faced lie.

We can go around in circles counting name calling.
Be my guest.

I am very new to this type of debate format, and admit to having been pulled in to an emotional level of debate - and resorting to name calling. For that I apologize
Accepted.

and intend to be very cautious from this point on to stay with a dispassionate discussion.
Let's hope you mean it.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
Well then, you need to adjust your actions to be more in line with your ideals.
My life - for me to live my way. I feel pretty consistent in terms of my position on the issues - and the charge of hypocrite seems like childish name calling to me.
Already falling down on your promise to argue dispassionately, are we?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
Show some ethics. Admit I've been right all along about the last 10 years.
Sure - a review of numerous data sets that look simply at the last 10 years - would indicate that temperatures have been at a plateau for that time period - you are correct.
This is where your statement needed to end. But no, you had to go on...

Below I would like to explain why I have a problem with you constantly using this piece of data to respond to articles talking about climate change issues.
Why do you have "a problem" with the facts? If they are indeed fact, then they are unequivocal.

Trying to passionately deny these facts out of existence is NOT science.

A scientist accepts contrary data and even embraces contrary data. We learn more when things don't go as we think they should.

Stating, "There's been no global warming for at least the last 10 years." in no way denies there has been global warming previously, and in no way denies global warming may (or may not) resume.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
cont. - If you look at any long term climate data set you see a clear trend of warming.
Indeed. But currently, it is not warming.

The problem for me lies in the numerous claims that "global warming is accelerating." This is clearly false, as warming has stopped, and it stopped at least 10 years ago.

Additional data seems to come in by the day (glacier melt, ice sheet melt, ocean rise etc.) to validate this understanding.
This is where you go off the tracks. This is purely anecdotal data ...much of which has very little to do with global temperatures. The proof is in the current ice conditions in the North. It being cooler than it was in 2007, proves Northern ice melt isn't entirely driven by temperature. The correlation is not one to one. Other factors need to be considered.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
There is clearly a community of folks who enjoy muddying the waters - and almost seem to delight in spreading confusion regarding a very complex issue.
By implication, this is another personal attack.

I would argue the people delighting in spreading confusion are those whom deny and obfuscate the facts ...one of which being there has been no global warming in at least the last 10 years.

Thus we have an interesting situation - 98 % of Canadians believe the globe is warming compared to just 62 % of Americans
This simply proves the Americans are better educated to the fact there has been no global warming in at least the last 10 years.

To state the earth is warming, is false. To state it has warmed, is true. To state the earth may (or may not) continue to warm, is speculative. To state scientists (as a unified group) expect it to continue to warm, is false. To state some (or many) scientists expect it to continue to warm, is true. Do you see the differences?

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
when I see a group of people who want to spam every article that mentions the climate with deceptive information
So now the fact you just admitted to is "deceptive?"

I am trying to be a part of pushing back.
Pushing back against what? Facts? You're doing nothing more here than admitting you're a denier.

If you look at one of those long term data sets - you will see periods of plateau. Some showing 1940 - 1980 as flat. But this does not detract from the big picture - that shows a long term temperature increase.
By implication, you're stating that if I flip a coin a few times and it comes out heads, it must therefore come out heads the next time I flip the coin.

Those plateaus may, or may not be indicative of the current situation. we can't know until things change which way it will go. All we can unequivocally state is, currently, the world hasn't been warming for at least the last 10 years.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
So from where I sit - throwing out stuff like "there has been no warming in the past 10 years" seems to be to be part of that design to muddy the waters and spread confusion.
So if simply stating a fact is "muddying the waters," by implication, aren't you saying that lying and obfuscating are "clarifying?"

I think you need to reexamine those ethics you so proudly spoke of.

So I am trying to be a part of the push back against that - I am at least transparent about my agenda.
And I mine.

To me, facts and truth matter. That they apparently don't matter to you, is shameful.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
VendiTard:

Over the last 24 hours I count you being caught telling around 2 dozen lies. Not least of which is in presenting HadCrut4 data as an up to date global data set when it omits more than the last year and a half.

Admit I've been right all along about the last 10 years. - Uba
You have continued to repeat the lie multiple times after being corrected and exposed as a liar each time.
Then explain how all the major global temperature indexes, combined, show this very same trend:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Even your precious GISSTemp:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Once again, VendiTard is caught lying.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
You were caught editing and altering the IPCC definition of "climate" from the IR4 synopsys report on climate.
This is a lie on your part. I didn't alter it at all. You lie by insisting climate must be measured in 30 year increments, when the definition clearly states otherwise.

You have been caught lying by falsely representing HadCrut3 as a global dataset.
Another lie on your part. As I've shown, it's rightly claimed by the owners to be a global dataset.

You were caught lying when you claimed that climate is defined over any time period you wish.
Another lie on your part. As I've shown, by definition: "other periods may be used depending on the purpose."

You were caught lying when you claimed that 10 years was a sufficiently long time period to evaluate global climate.
Another lie on your part. I never said that. I only stated there has been no significant global warming in at least the last 10 years.

cont...
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
You were caught lying when you claimed that Antarctic ice volume was increasing.
Another lie on you part. As I've shown, the depth of the ice on the Antarctic continent is increasing.

You were caught lying when you claimed that the Antarctic was experiencing record cold temperatures.
Another lie on your part. They recently measured the world's record low, on June 11th.

http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=41

You were caught lying when you claimed "the HadCRUT4 data was specifically manipulated to show excess global warming"
It is, and you proved it with your own reference. They added regions of temperature that weren't previously included (or even measured), and only extrapolated (guessed) what the previous comparable data would be (apparently, in order to elevate their "warming trend"). One wonders if this is why they aren't continually updating it, as promised.

cont...
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
You were caught lying when you stated...

"100 years is even less relevant than the 4.5 and 4 year data sets. " - Uba
Another lie on your part. In the context of the last 10 years (and only the last 10 years), it is irrelevant.

"I have no agenda beyond exposing the truth." - Uba
Indeed.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
So you're a conservative, is that it?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
You have been shown the following chart at least a half dozen times.

https://docs.goog...1VVFIdzQ
What chart? This link does not work. It looks like a personal account page, requiring an ID and password from the account holder.

The red and green lines show the upper and lower confidence limits for the slope of the trend at a 2 sigma level of confidence.

The error in the slope is 10 times larger than the slope itself.

Your claim of a significant trend over the last 10 years is therfore a lie.
Another lie on your part. That the confidence can deviate from the mean, in no way affects the apparent trend. According to the GISSTemp graph, the trend is quite clear.

http://www.woodfo...02/trend
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
VendiTard has a long history of lying.

Earlier this spring, he claimed that that the U.S. winter was not unusual in it's warmth, when in fact it was a record warm winter.
This lie is easy to expose.

According to the NOAA, it was only the fourth warmest winter on record:
http://www1.ncdc....2012.gif

In spring he claimed that there was no crop damage to mid April frosts, when in fact near 100% crop losses in apples, cherries, plumbs, peaches, and strawberries, in much of New York state and Southern Ontario.
This is another VendiTard lie. I caught him ,red-handed, lying about cherry crop damage that hadn't occured. Later tart cherry crop damage did occur and he's trying to claim this is the crop damage he claimed (6 weeks before it actually happened). Also, the crop damage wasn't nearly so dramatic. As I showed him, the tart cherry crop was damaged, but the sweet cherry crop was a bumper harvest.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
Uba then went on to claim that there was no drought developing in the U.S. grain belt. A drought that has been fully realized as the worst since the dust bowl and which has caused corn and soybean prices to near historic highs.
This is a lie. I never claimed there wasn't a drought. I just said (in the context of the time) that drought (in general) wasn't unusual. I even provided an AMS reference which states drought in the U.S. is a normal condition.

Uba isn't the most prolific Liar on PhysOrg. NotParker and Rygg are more prolific liars. But Uba is giving them a run for their money.
I'd say the award for the most prolific liar on PhysOrg clearly belongs to VendiTard. I think he also owns the award for being the most obnoxious and unpleasant commenter on PhysOrg.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
Open water in the arctic means accelerated global warming and in addition it means greater variability in the offset of the polar vortex, which means greater weekly variability in the winter months in the Northern Hemisphere.
Yeah? So what do record cold temperatures in the Antarctic mean?

In addition there will be a continuing movement of temperature regions northward, with the mid U.S. reverting to the same arid conditions that are now experienced in Texas. The U.S. grain belt will continue to revert to desert.
LOL. Now he thinks he's a prognosticator!

And even if it does become ice free, so what? - Uba
So much for your dishonest assertion ....
Ooh! VendiTard the Prognosticator said it, so it must be true (NOT!).

I have no agenda beyond exposing the truth. - Uba
Indeed.

djr
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
Already falling down on your promise to argue dispassionately, are we? - nope - very dispassionately pointing out that calling someone a hypocrite - and not being willing to explain why you would use this insult is childish.

"Why do you have "a problem" with the facts? If they are indeed fact, then they are unequivocal."

I acknowledged the facts - and went on to point out why I have a problem with your use of the facts. As you say - "in no way denies there has been global warming previously, and in no way denies global warming may (or may not) resume." In fact I would add to that - I feel global warming is continuing today - as evidenced by melting glaciers, melting ice sheets, rising sea levels etc. Obviously these things are complex - and there is fly wheel effect.
SatanLover
4 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2012
a lot of hot air waste in this forum.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
Uba caught in yet another lie.

"But it is a global dataset." - Uba lying about HadCrut3
LOL. Lying by accusing me of lying, is in itself a lie.

"HadCRUT3 is a gridded dataset of global historical surface temperature anomalies." - Met Office Hadley Centre website

http://www.metoff...adcrut3/

"But both HadCRUT3 and the NCDC data omit the Arctic and Antarctic regions." - http://www.skepti...p?n=1378
So? Even GISSTemp shows the cooling of the last 10 years.

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Will you admit I'm right now?

djr
4 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2012
"To me, facts and truth matter. That they apparently don't matter to you, is shameful."

Facts and truth do matter very much to me - you are just making this personal now. Perhaps the reality is that this kind of discussion almost always ends in people calling each other tards, and liars, and hypocrites - and insulting each other on a personal level - perhaps that is programmed in to the human dna. I will take some time off to mull this one. Cheers.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
Uba spends so much of his time lying that he can't even keep track of the lies he is telling.

His own graphic contradicts his own denialist lie.

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

"No global warming for more than 15 years:" = Uba
Now this is a bold-faced misrepresentation on your part. You substituted a different dataset and are now trying to pass it off as mine. Here's the data I referenced:

http://www.woodfo...97/trend

What's the matter VendiTard? Are you afraid of the data?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
One of UbVonTard's many lies of omission is his refusal to state that the 2 sigma statistical error in his slope of the trend line is 10 times larger than the slope of the trend he is claiming.

The slope is

-.02'C per decade plus or minus 0.2'C per decade.

In other words the trend that he claims is significant in fact has no statistical significance at all.
Another VendiTard Lie. This is meaningless drivel. This in no way changes the mean or the trend.

"You mean like you do, by going to extreme lengths to omit the data of the last 10 years?" - Uba
Which he has just proven by trying to confuse the issue with his ridiculous course on (and blatant misunderstanding of) statistics!

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Why do you keep referring to yourself this way?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
License is not ownership. That is why the word "license" is used and not the word "ownership".

"Meaning, it is legally owned by them." - UbVonTard

UbVonTard can't even figure that much out.
Idiot. "License" refers to dispensation, not ownership.

Again, look up copyright law.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
VendiTard is caught telling more lies.

"the first sentence spoken states: "The HadCRUT3 is the global temperature dataset..." - Uba

The actual sentence is....
"The HadCrut is a global temperature dataset"

UbVonTard has dishonestly misquoted the text of the presentation and changed the word "hadcrut" used in the presentation to "hadcrut3" which is not stated.
Idiot. That's just a typo. It makes no difference to the context. HADCrut3 is a HADCrut dataset.

This is similar to UbVonTard's dishonest modification of the IPCC's definition of "climate" that he used in another post.
Another lie. The relevant context was retained.

Later he went on to explain that he modified that definition to reduce it's length. But in fact he removed those portions of the definition that contradicted his claimed definition of "climate"
Another VendiTard lie. Nothing contradicts my claimed definition of climate, but plenty contradicts his.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
"... the results show that it's now warmer on James Ross Island now than it has been at any time during at least the last millennium,
Like anyone was there with a thermometer 1,000 years ago!

"Currently, the Antarctic is experiencing virtually unprecedented cold trends." - Uba
Indeed. The new cold temperature record was set on June 11th of this year.

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
VendiTard is caught telling yet another lie...

Uba is caught telling yet another lie...

"Antarctic ice has been trending upward." - Uba

"A new, high-resolution surface mass balance map of Antarctica (1979–2010)" - GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 39, L04501, 5 PP., 2012 doi:10.1029/2011GL050713

Key Points
Good agreement of modeled SMB field with observations

Very high accumulation in West Antarctica is confirmed

No significant SMB trend on Antarctica in period 1979–2010"
Well then, it certainly isn't melting as you claimed, now is it?

And:

"Height of Antarctica ice sheet increasing"

"...the height of Antarctic ice to be an average of nine centimetres higher than the measurements obtained during the 2008-2009 campaigns."

http://en.mercopr...creasing

Nine centimeters! Over the whole of the Antarctic ice sheet, that's a LOT of ice!

kochevnik
3.5 / 5 (8) Aug 26, 2012
@ubavontuba What part of
"summer ice in the Arctic was already nearing its lowest level recorded"

do you not understand?
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Aug 26, 2012
Why else do we engage in dialogue? I have many friends who are deeply religious. They continually try to change how I think on a deeply personal level. I happily return the compliment. Every Sunday morning across the U.S. - tens of thousands of preachers stand in a pulpit and try to change how people think - on a deeply personal level.
The difference is your desire to make these changes mandatory. And you would eliminate any dissent.

I certainly do not lean towards socialism or communism - I lean more towards advocating for personal liberties
Then why would you disavow the personal liberties of belief, ideology, and association?

although I recognize a limited role for government in protecting the common good. Do you recognize this role?
I recognize a role for government in providing for the common defense, promoting the general Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Liberty. It's in the U.S. Constitution.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
Already falling down on your promise to argue dispassionately, are we? - nope - very dispassionately pointing out that calling someone a hypocrite - and not being willing to explain why you would use this insult is childish.
Isn't it more childish to deny that I did give reasons why I called you a hypocrite (not the least of which is you admitted it yourself)?

"Why do you have "a problem" with the facts? If they are indeed fact, then they are unequivocal."

I acknowledged the facts - and went on to point out why I have a problem with your use of the facts.
Meaning (of course), you have a problem with the facts.

I feel global warming is continuing today - as evidenced by melting glaciers, melting ice sheets, rising sea levels etc.
So "global warming" isn't about global temperatures now? It's about the weather?

Gee, then what does the recent worldwide cold temperature record set on June 11th, 2012 tell you?
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Aug 26, 2012
""Currently, the Antarctic is experiencing virtually unprecedented cold trends." - Uba Indeed. The new cold temperature record was set on June 11th of this year."

Bollocks ... you're using weather as a cherry-pick in your climate agenda. I can quote a record high for you to counter ..........
" Santa delivered a record-breaking summer day to the South Pole this year.

The temperature at the Amundsen-Scott South Pole research station hit 9.9°F (-12.3°C) on Dec. 25 (2011), beating the old record of 7.5°F (-13.6°C) set on Dec. 27, 1978, reported the Weather Underground."

Also....
JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, D16108, 19 PP., 2012
doi:10.1029/2012JD017885

Half-century air temperature change above Antarctica (1961-2010): Observed trends and spatial reconstructions
Key Points

Significant temperature changes above Antarctica over last half-century
Mid-troposphere has warmed in all seasons
Stratosphere has cooled, primarily in austral spring/summer

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
"To me, facts and truth matter. That they apparently don't matter to you, is shameful."

Facts and truth do matter very much to me
Then why do you work so diligently to obfuscate the facts?

you are just making this personal now.
Not intentionally. But if a science discussion isn't about observations and facts, what good is it? Without adherence to the data, we might as well be talking about fairies and unicorns.

Perhaps the reality is that this kind of discussion almost always ends in people ...insulting each other on a personal level - perhaps that is programmed in to the human dna.
Sadly, this observation seems accurate. I wish it were otherwise. But people seem to take disagreement as a personal insult. If everyone consciously chose to endeavor to keep it dispassionate, and focus on the data, I think it could be sharply improved.

I will take some time off to mull this one. Cheers.
Mull away.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
@ubavontuba What part of
"summer ice in the Arctic was already nearing its lowest level recorded"

do you not understand?
What part of, "So What?" do you not understand?

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 26, 2012
""Currently, the Antarctic is experiencing virtually unprecedented cold trends." - Uba Indeed. The new cold temperature record was set on June 11th of this year."

Bollocks ... you're using weather as a cherry-pick in your climate agenda. I can quote a record high for you to counter ..........
First of all, you've taken my quote out of context.

Secondly, you complain that I'm "using weather as a cherry-pick in my climate agenda." and then go on to use weather as a cherry-pick in YOUR climate agenda (can you say, "hypocrite").

And thirdly, you have the mistaken impression that I have a "climate agenda."

djr
4.6 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2012
"But people seem to take disagreement as a personal insult."

So Uba - what sense would you make of these facts?

You admonish me regarding name calling. You claim the moral high ground in terms of your regard for truth, science and facts. Here is a quote from a recent post of yours "Name calling and personal attacks are poor excuses for dialogue."

And then on the same thread you use these terms - "idiot, tard, diseased mind, mentally diseased, liar, hypocrite."

I am just asking - that is all.
thermodynamics
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2012
Uba: Djr said: "I feel global warming is continuing today - as evidenced by melting glaciers, melting ice sheets, rising sea levels etc."

You replied with "So "global warming" isn't about global temperatures now? It's about the weather?Gee, then what does the recent worldwide cold temperature record set on June 11th, 2012 tell you?"

I can see from the posts that you seem to be just spaming but in case you are really serious, I hope you know that DJR is correct and you don't have a clue.

Quoting a single temperature on one days is weather. I am sure you know that. To claim otherwise is just obstinate.

To ignore the trend of temperatures that is upward is to show ignorance of interpretation of data from noise (quoting your 10 year period that is arbitrairly chosen (as you noted by saying you can pick any dates you want).

Finally, you must know that melting of a material is nearly isothtermal (it would be if it were pure water but it has salt). Continued
thermodynamics
3.8 / 5 (5) Aug 26, 2012
Since melting takes place isothermally and requires much more heat than raising the temperature of either a gas or liquid (or in the case of water, even solids) then you must recognize the melting of huge sections of the Arctic to be important. If you don't recognize that then you really need to take a first physics course. I am sure this will be wasted on you (from what I have seen) but I do have to support those who are trying to use reason with you.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
"But people seem to take disagreement as a personal insult."

So Uba - what sense would you make of these facts?

You admonish me regarding name calling. You claim the moral high ground in terms of your regard for truth, science and facts. Here is a quote from a recent post of yours "Name calling and personal attacks are poor excuses for dialogue."

And then on the same thread you use these terms - "idiot, tard, diseased mind, mentally diseased, liar, hypocrite."

I am just asking - that is all.
Most of those are taglines from Vendicar Decarian that I simply repost back to him.

I have also called him, and rarely others, an "idiot" from time to time. But again it's in response to his/their extreme rudeness.

I don't consider deservedly calling someone a hypocrite to be name-calling, as it's more an observation than an affront. I'll even admit that at times I too have been, or may appear to be, a hypocrite. But I do consciously endeavor to avoid being so.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Uba: Djr said: "I feel global warming is continuing today - as evidenced by melting glaciers, melting ice sheets, rising sea levels etc."

You replied with "So "global warming" isn't about global temperatures now? It's about the weather?Gee, then what does the recent worldwide cold temperature record set on June 11th, 2012 tell you?"

I can see from the posts that you seem to be just spaming but in case you are really serious, I hope you know that DJR is correct and you don't have a clue.

Quoting a single temperature on one days is weather. I am sure you know that. To claim otherwise is just obstinate.
I'm merely demonstrating that quoting weather reports is meaningless in terms of the global warming debate. If it's the single day reference that bothers you, didn't you notice where I previously posted data wherein the Russians reported an extended cold spell in the Antarctic? At that time, they thought they'd reach a new low in a few of years, not this year!

cont...
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
To ignore the trend of temperatures that is upward is to show ignorance of interpretation of data from noise (quoting your 10 year period that is arbitrairly chosen (as you noted by saying you can pick any dates you want).
Aparently then, you rank my posts without even bothering to read them. Shame on you. The 10 year period is not chosen arbitrarily.

I do not ignore the previous warming trend, and have readily admitted that up to at least 10 years ago, the world had been warming. The 10 year period merely reflects a more contemporaneous picture of what's going on with the global climate.

And seriously, why aren't you happy about this?

To suggest your car is accelerating when in fact it had been accelerating and you're now cruising just under the speed limit would be false, wouldn't it? How is this any different? Maybe you think a cop should give you a ticket for exceeding the speed limit with the argument that you're accelerating, because you had been accelerating?

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
And Now UbVonTard admits that he is a chronic liar...

"I have also called him, and rarely others, an "idiot" from time to time. But again it's in response to his/their extreme rudeness." - UbVonTard

In other words you refer to me as an Idiot not because you believe that I am an idiot, but because you don't like the manner in which I refer to you.

I on the other hand, refer to you as a congenital Liar because you have repeatedly proven yourself to be a congenital liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2012
That is interesting because I don't consider it to be name calling when I refer to a congenital Liar such as yourself as a liar.

"I don't consider deservedly calling someone a hypocrite to be name-calling" - UbVonTard

Yet you dishonestly complain that is is name calling, which also makes you a hypocrite along with being a congenital liar.

ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
Finally, you must know that melting of a material is nearly isothtermal (it would be if it were pure water but it has salt.

Since melting takes place isothermally and requires much more heat than raising the temperature of either a gas or liquid (or in the case of water, even solids) then you must recognize the melting of huge sections of the Arctic to be important. If you don't recognize that then you really need to take a first physics course. I am sure this will be wasted on you (from what I have seen) but I do have to support those who are trying to use reason with you.
Essentially you're stating the ice melt is an indicator the whole system has warmed. As I've expressed earlier, I do not deny the globe has warmed. I'm only stating it apparently stopped warming at least 10 years ago.

And the ice isn't "disappearing." It will return when next the sun dips below the Arctic horizon. Annual melts have no significant lasting effect on global temperatures.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2012
Your statement can only be true if there is some statistical significance to your claimed trend.

Yet we see that the trend line has a slope of your trend line is fully 10 times smaller than the 2 sigma confidence limit for that trend line.

In other words, there is NO significance to the trend, and hence your claim is statistically false.

And that is just one reason why you are a liar when you make your claim of some trivial amount of cooling over the last 10 years.

And of course you also are guilty of lying for using a data set that excludes large portions of the earth's polar regions and claiming that the data set is global in scope.

When a less biased data set is used, your claimed trend becomes even less relevant.

"The 10 year period merely reflects a more contemporaneous picture of what's going on with the global climate." - UbVonTard

You are a chronic and perpetual liar.
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
And Now Uba admits that he is a chronic liar...

"I have also called him, and rarely others, an "idiot" from time to time. But again it's in response to his/their extreme rudeness." - Uba

In other words you refer to me as an Idiot not because you believe that I am an idiot, but because you don't like the manner in which I refer to you.
I reserve the term for when you rudely state something truly and blatantly idiotic. If I genuinely expressed my disdain for your intellectual capacity, my responses would be filled to overflowing with the term.

I on the other hand, refer to you as a congenital Liar because you have repeatedly proven yourself to be a congenital liar.
What does that even mean? Are you really suggesting newborn babies can be liars? LOL. Do you even begin to see what I mean here? Your idiocy knows no bounds!

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
And as you have been repeatedly told, your claim is false since it has no statistical basis in fact. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.

Your claim is a lie, and your lie is compounded by the fact that you dishonestly continue to use a data set that excludes large regions of the arctic and antarctic.

"I'm only stating it apparently stopped warming at least 10 years ago." - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Just as I reserve the term "Congenital LIAR" to congenital liars like yourself.

Just as I reserve the term "Tard" to mentally retarded people like yourself who are incapable of learning.

"I reserve the term for when you rudely state something truly and blatantly idiotic." - UbVonTard

So what is all your childish whining about, hypocrite?
ubavontuba
1.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
That is interesting because I don't consider it to be name calling when I refer to a congenital Liar such as yourself as a liar.

"I don't consider deservedly calling someone a hypocrite to be name-calling" - Uba

Yet you dishonestly complain that is is name calling, which also makes you a hypocrite along with being a congenital liar.
Nothing I write is intentionally misleading, whereas you purposely perpetrate false statements.

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2012
"I on the other hand, refer to you as a congenital Liar because you have repeatedly proven yourself to be a congenital liar." - VD

"What does that even mean?" - UbVonTard

It means that you are worthy of the label "congenital liar".

Your confusion means that you are worthy of the label "Tard".

Clearly you aren't bright enough to be conversing with adults.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2012
Your claim then is then that your use of a non-global data that omits the polar regions is either not misleading, or it is not intentional.

Yet after dozens of corrections you continue to use that data set.

This means that you are either so stupid that you don't have the capacity to learn after repeatedly being corrected, or that you are so stupid that you don't believe that omitting the polar regions is misleading - despite the fact that they the new data set includes them explicitly for the purpose of not being misleading.

"Nothing I write is intentionally misleading" - UbVonTard

Now, since It is hard to believe that anyone who has enough brain power to breathe, could be so stupid, I can only conclude that you are a liar when you claim that you do not intentionally mislead.

So what is it? Are you a low grade moron? Or are you a congenital liar?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
And once again UbVonTard is caught telling a lie.

Sea ice area, sea ice extent and arctic ice volume are in decline. as the following graphics clearly show.

By all measures, polar ice is in rapid decline.

http://stevengodd...mp;h=323

http://arctic.atm...ive.html

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

"And the ice isn't "disappearing."" - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Your statement can only be true if there is some statistical significance to your claimed trend.

Yet we see that the trend line has a slope of your trend line is fully 10 times smaller than the 2 sigma confidence limit for that trend line.

In other words, there is NO significance to the trend, and hence your claim is statistically false.
Blather. And you wonder why I call you an idiot?

Following your logic, you're stating there's no significance to any trend, therefore you're global warming argument is equally invalid. (d'oh!)

And there is very little uncertainty in the graphs. The temperature measurements are the temperatures measured (the data is quite solid).

"uncertainty depends on both the accuracy and precision of the measurement instrument. The lower the accuracy and precision of an instrument, the larger the measurement uncertainty is" - Wikipedia

http://en.wikiped...urements

Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
And again you are lying. You haven't shown anything of the kind.

"Another lie on you part. As I've shown, the depth of the ice on the Antarctic continent is increasing." - UbVonTard

In fact I have provided you with multiple references to peer reviewed journals that measure a decline of the mass balance on the antarctic continent.

http://www.skepti...SKS2.png

http://thingsbrea...-update/
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
And as you have been repeatedly told, your claim is false since it has no statistical basis in fact. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing.
LOL. So then does your claim of warming!

And you wonder why I call you an idiot? Really?

Your claim is a lie, and your lie is compounded by the fact that you dishonestly continue to use a data set that excludes large regions of the arctic and antarctic.
This is a lie. As you so fervently (and recently) stated, GISTEMP includes the polar regions, yet it shows the same trend!

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

"I'm only stating it apparently stopped warming at least 10 years ago." - Uba
Indeed.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Measures of statistical significance are hardly blather.

But I suppose someone like yourself who is exceptionally ignorant might believe so.

"Blather. And you wonder why I call you an idiot?" - UbVonTard

Your claimed decline has a slope of -.02'C per decade, but the 2 standard deviation confidence in that slope puts it anywhere from positive 0.2'C per decade to negative 0.2'C per decade.

As you can see from the following plot, 2 standard deviations puts the confidence at 90 percent.

So we can be 90 percent certain that the slope of the trend is between those two values.

http://upload.wik....svg.png

This is basic high school level statistics. Something you should have learned in grade 11.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Just as I reserve the term "Congenital LIAR" to congenital liars like yourself.

Just as I reserve the term "Tard" to mentally retarded people like yourself who are incapable of learning.
More lies. You use these on anyone who disagrees with you. It's not even about lying or mental agility. It's about being hateful of dissenting opinions.

"I reserve the term for when you rudely state something truly and blatantly idiotic." - Uba
Well actually, you say blatantly idiotic things so often that I usually restrain myself , even then.

So what is all your childish whining about, hypocrite?
LOL. It seems you're the one whining here.

Poor VendiTard. Uba won't agree with him so he's going to pout and call Uba a poopyhead!

Clearly you aren't bright enough to be conversing with adults.
...says the petulant child.

Sheesh. Grow up and converse like an adult, why don't you?
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Wrong again Tard Boy.

"Following your logic, you're stating there's no significance to any trend" - UbVonTard

Trend line significance is dependent upon how well the data fits the trend line in question. In your case over 10 years the computed trend is dwarfed by the excursions the data takes above and below the computed line.

With such large excursions, the computed trend is mostly statistical noise rather than signal. As a result the error bars in the trend line are large - 10 times larger than you slope you claim.

Using a longer time period (more than 10 years) or having data with less noise will produce trend lines with more statistical confidence, and less error in the slope.

Again this is basic high school statistics that you are failing to comprehend.

Are you pleading ignorance in order to explain why you have been chronically lying for the last several years?
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Your claim then is then that your use of a non-global data that omits the polar regions is either not misleading, or it is not intentional.

Yet after dozens of corrections you continue to use that data set.
It's a standard global climatological dataset.

This means that you are either so stupid that you don't have the capacity to learn after repeatedly being corrected, or that you are so stupid that you don't believe that omitting the polar regions is misleading - despite the fact that they the new data set includes them explicitly for the purpose of not being misleading.
Where is it written I have to use only VendiTard approved datasets?

Even so, GISTEMP shows the same cooling trend. Do you have an argument to make against GISTEMP now?

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Nothing I write is intentionally misleading" - Uba
Indeed. Too bad you can't honestly say the same thing about yourself.
Vendicar_Decarian
4 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
But a great deal of statistical uncertainty in the result.

"And there is very little uncertainty in the graphs." - UbVonTard

You have rolled a die 10 times and come up with 2 ones. Your claim is that the die is biased low. That claim is statistically unfounded because even though there is no statistical error in measuring each role of the die, there is still a good chance that the two ones were achieved by statistical chance rather than real bias.

This is basic high school statistics. If you are incapable of comprehending basic statistics then you have zero basis for claiming that your nonsense plot has any statistical significance.

On the other hand you may now wish to claim that your plot has no statistical significance, in which case you will have just admitted that your two years of arguing that the earth is cooling is based on nothing but ignorance on your part.

So which is it Tard Boy?

Vendicar_Decarian
5 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
False. I reserve the term "Tard" to those who make patently false claims, engage in sophistry, advance unstable ideologies, unwitting hypocrisy, self contradiction, or other mentally retarded behavior when they should know better.

You... You are the King of Tards.

"More lies. You use these on anyone who disagrees with you." - UbVonTard
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
And once again Uba is caught telling a lie.

Sea ice area, sea ice extent and arctic ice volume are in decline. as the following graphics clearly show.

By all measures, polar ice is in rapid decline.

http://stevengodd...mp;h=323

"And the ice isn't "disappearing."" - Uba
Wow. You're really having a problem understanding the context, aren't you?

This is a dead giveaway that you're a chatbot. Chatbots substitute ad hominem attacks for valid arguments because it gives the appearance of being an argument, even though it doesn't really address the topic in discussion.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
Liar. You can't even use a dictionary without dishonest misrepresentation.

You know... Like the definition of "climate" that you took from IPCC AR4 and then dishonestly altered.

"uncertainty depends on both the accuracy and precision of the measurement instrument. " - UbVonTard

From your own source...

Uncertainty: The lack of certainty, A state of having limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly describe the existing state, a future outcome, or more than one possible outcome.

Measurement of Uncertainty: A set of possible states or outcomes where probabilities are assigned to each possible state or outcome – this also includes the application of a probability density function to continuous variables

Risk: A state of uncertainty where some possible outcomes have an undesired effect or significant loss.

Measurement of Risk: A set of measured uncertainties where some possible outcomes are losses, and the magnitudes of those losses – this also includes cont..
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
And again you are lying. You haven't shown anything of the kind.

"Another lie on you part. As I've shown, the depth of the ice on the Antarctic continent is increasing." - Uba
LOL. Another dead giveaway you're a chatbot. Chatbots have difficulty interpreting links (the data generally has to be manually entered). This is why VendiTard often takes days to recognize facts from links. For instance, has anyone else noticed he hasn't commented on the latest low temperature record? I wonder how long it will take for someone to input the data.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
this also includes loss functions over continuous variables.

Your selective mis-quoting of articles, selecting only those portions that support your view, is a very strong indicator of your strong reliance on dishonesty when conducing yourself.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Measures of statistical significance are hardly blather.

But I suppose someone like yourself who is exceptionally ignorant might believe so.

"Blather. And you wonder why I call you an idiot?" - UbVonTard

Your claimed decline has a slope of -.02'C per decade, but the 2 standard deviation confidence in that slope puts it anywhere from positive 0.2'C per decade to negative 0.2'C per decade.

As you can see from the following plot, 2 standard deviations puts the confidence at 90 percent.

So we can be 90 percent certain that the slope of the trend is between those two values.
LOL. Now all you're saying is the mean and trend are what they are, and you don't even know it!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Others have exposed your claim as a lie. There is no need for me to repeat their criticism of you.

"For instance, has anyone else noticed he hasn't commented on the latest low temperature record?" - UbVonTard

But I will do so anyhow...

"Bollocks ... you're using weather as a cherry-pick in your climate agenda." - runrig

JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 117, D16108, 19 PP., 2012 doi:10.1029/2012JD017885 Half-century air temperature change above Antarctica (1961-2010): Observed trends and spatial reconstructions Key Points Significant temperature changes above Antarctica over last half-century Mid-troposphere has warmed in all seasons Stratosphere has cooled, primarily in austral spring/summer

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Wrong again Tard Boy.

"Following your logic, you're stating there's no significance to any trend" - UbVonTard

Trend line significance is dependent upon how well the data fits the trend line in question. In your case over 10 years the computed trend is dwarfed by the excursions the data takes above and below the computed line.

With such large excursions, the computed trend is mostly statistical noise rather than signal. As a result the error bars in the trend line are large - 10 times larger than you slope you claim.

Using a longer time period (more than 10 years) or having data with less noise will produce trend lines with more statistical confidence, and less error in the slope.
Wrong. The mean is the hard data averaged. The trend is the average of the mean. These do not change, unless the hard data itself changes. Technically, you can't go back and re-measure a temperature. At most, you might find a rare data input error.

Are we learning yet?

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy, but that is not what statistical significance is about.

"LOL. Now all you're saying is the mean and trend are what they are, and you don't even know it!" - UbVonTard

If you have no interest in making statistically significant claims, or learning what statistical significance is, then your comments can be entirely discounted on the basis that they stem from self imposed ignorance on your part.

Your claims have been shown to be statistically invalid. Your data sources have been shown to be biased. You have been repeatedly been shown to selectively and dishonesty quote sources, and you have been repeatedly caught lying with almost every sentence you write.

Your credibility is strongly trending toward the negatively infinite.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
But a great deal of statistical uncertainty in the result.

"And there is very little uncertainty in the graphs." - Uba

You have rolled a die 10 times and come up with 2 ones. Your claim is that the die is biased low. That claim is statistically unfounded because even though there is no statistical error in measuring each role of the die, there is still a good chance that the two ones were achieved by statistical chance rather than real bias.

This is basic high school statistics. If you are incapable of comprehending basic statistics then you have zero basis for claiming that your nonsense plot has any statistical significance.

On the other hand you may now wish to claim that your plot has no statistical significance, in which case you will have just admitted that your two years of arguing that the earth is cooling is based on nothing but ignorance on your part.

So which is it Tard Boy?
Again, you're an idiot. 10 year graphs consist of countless thousands of data points.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Data (1,1,1,1,1)
Trend = 0
Mean = 1
Average of the mean (n item window) = 1

Trend not = Average of the mean.

"Wrong. The mean is the hard data averaged. The trend is the average of the mean." - UbVonTard

Proving that you are a complete idiot, and are in need of psychological help.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
False. I reserve the term "Tard" to those who make patently false claims, engage in sophistry, advance unstable ideologies, unwitting hypocrisy, self contradiction, or other mentally retarded behavior when they should know better.
Then you should be using them on yourself, profusely.

You... You are the King of Tards.
Indeed you are.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Having thousands of data points allows you to measure the statistical noise with improved accuracy.

"Again, you're an idiot. 10 year graphs consist of countless thousands of data points." - UbVonTard

Your computed trend of 0.02'C per decade has a 2 sigma error of 0.2'C per decade as a result of that noise.

You aren't bright enough to be able to distinguish between measurement error and statistical variance in the measured signal.

The distinction between signal and measurement noise was taught to me in grade 9.

What is your excuse for not knowing the difference?

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Liar. You can't even use a dictionary without dishonest misrepresentation.

You know... Like the definition of "climate" that you took from IPCC AR4 and then dishonestly altered.
Another Venditard lie. I didn't alter the definition by even one letter. And I clearly identified the source and provided links.

"uncertainty depends on both the accuracy and precision of the measurement instrument. " - Uba

From your own source...

Uncertainty: The lack of certainty, A state of having limited knowledge where it is impossible to exactly describe the existing state, a future outcome, or more than one possible outcome.

Measurement of Uncertainty: A set of possible states or outcomes where probabilities are assigned to each possible state or outcome – this also includes the application of a probability density function to continuous variables
And weather reporting is a very certain science. Temperature records are quite reliable and well maintained.

Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
It appears that your intellectual capacity is that of a pre-high school student.

"Then you should be using them on yourself, profusely." - UbVonTard

Intellecutal Children like yourself should generally keep their ignorant mouths shut until they have the competence to say something that doesn't wreak of stupidity.

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
UbVonTard is caught in yet another lie.

"I didn't alter the definition by even one letter"

Earlier when UbVonTard's lie was exposed, and the full definition From AR4 was posted, his response was.

"I edited it for length, but the part I used covers all the relevant information" - UbVonTard

Now he claims that he didn't alter it "one letter".

Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, and then Stupidity.

Lying is UbVonTard's only method of argument. He is a typical Conservative in that regard.

How many lies now over the last 3 days? He is fast approaching 100.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
this also includes loss functions over continuous variables.

Your selective mis-quoting of articles, selecting only those portions that support your view, is a very strong indicator of your strong reliance on dishonesty when conducing yourself.
...says the idiot who refuese to admit GISTEMP shows a 10 year cooling trend! LOL

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
So which is it UbVonTard Liar.

Did you not edit one letter? Or did you "edit it for length".

Either you are lying now or lying before.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Idiot...

"And weather reporting is a very certain science. Temperature records are quite reliable and well maintained."

The issue is noise in the signal, not measurement error.

Since you can't comprehend the difference, you will never be capable of posting a rational argument.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
this also includes loss functions over continuous variables.

Your selective mis-quoting of articles, selecting only those portions that support your view, is a very strong indicator of your strong reliance on dishonesty when conducing yourself.
...says the idiot chatbot which still refuses to admit even GISTEMP shows global warming stopped at least 10 years ago.

http://www.woodfo...02/trend
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Others have exposed your claim as a lie. There is no need for me to repeat their criticism of you.

"For instance, has anyone else noticed he hasn't commented on the latest low temperature record?" - UbVonTard

But I will do so anyhow...

"Bollocks ... you're using weather as a cherry-pick in your climate agenda." - runrig
LOL. VendiTard's programmers must be on duty. Funny he forgot to mention the article I provided wherein the Russsians talked of an extended cold spell in the Antarctic.

For that matter, he hasn't admitted he was wrong in stating the U.S. just suffered its coldest winter on record.

I wonder what (if anything) he'll make of this reference:

http://en.wikiped...old_wave

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Sorry Tard Boy, but that is not what statistical significance is about.

"LOL. Now all you're saying is the mean and trend are what they are, and you don't even know it!" - UbVonTard

If you have no interest in making statistically significant claims, or learning what statistical significance is, then your comments can be entirely discounted on the basis that they stem from self imposed ignorance on your part.

Your claims have been shown to be statistically invalid. Your data sources have been shown to be biased. You have been repeatedly been shown to selectively and dishonesty quote sources, and you have been repeatedly caught lying with almost every sentence you write.

Your credibility is strongly trending toward the negatively infinite.
...says the idiot who knows nothing of statistics. LOL.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Why does your claimed "cooling trend" vanish when 8 months of data are removed from the front of your Dataset in order to provide a true 10 year window rather than a 10.8 year window?

http://www.woodfo....8/trend

"says the idiot who refuese to admit GISTEMP shows a 10 year cooling trend! LOL"

But even using your cherry picked data period, the trend is computed to be somewhere between 0.2'C per decade to minus 0.2'C per decade at 90 percent confidence, and accurate to one decimal point.

The following graphic tells it all.

https://docs.goog...1VVFIdzQ

Vendicar_Decarian
2.6 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
I am calling you a Liar for telling yet another Lie of Omission.

"So now you're calling the Russian scientists liars?" - UbVonTard

Others have done the same regarding your dishonest statements.

Your chronic lying is childishly trivial to spot and expose.
Vendicar_Decarian
3 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
That was your claim not mine.

"For that matter, he hasn't admitted he was wrong in stating the U.S. just suffered its coldest winter on record." - UbVonTard

You also claimed that there was no crop damage in last april's frost.

You were caught lying though your teeth, about that as well.

http://www.ctvnew...1.807831
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
The difference of course is that your claims are statistically invalid lies, while the claims of warming are statistically valid observations.

The difference is statistical significance. Something that is taught in grade 9 math, and something that you have repeatedly proven yourself incapable of understanding.

Your overall intelligence is on par with what is expected of a 10 year old.

"And as you have been repeatedly told, your claim is false since it has no statistical basis in fact. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Nothing." - VD

"LOL. So then does your claim of warming!" - UbVonTard

Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
If HadCrut3 was global - moron - then it would not have omitted large regions of the north and south poles, and it wouldn't have been replaced with HadCrut4 which does a better job of including the polar regions in total.

"It's a standard global climatological dataset." - UbVonTard

You have been told this repeatedly. Your failure to correct your past mistakes, and your insistance on repeating those mistakes when you have been corrected, is the behavior of a congenital liar.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.4 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Your dataset does not include large regions around the north and south poles, and hence is not global, and hence not representitive of global temperatures, contrary to your continual lies.

Further your data set is dominated by noise, and the "trend" you compute has a statistical error that is ten times larger than the trend you report.

Therefore your claimed "trend" is not only not global, but has no statistical relevance at all.

"Now this is a bold-faced misrepresentation on your part. You substituted a different dataset and are now trying to pass it off as mine. Here's the data I referenced:" - UbVonTard

You have been corrected on these issues dozens and dozens of times, yet you continue to repeat the same lie over and over again.

I have never encountered a Conservative who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
Which is it Tard Boy? Are you lying now? Or were you lying before?

"There is no drought. There has never been as much Corn and Wheat as there is today." - UbVonTard

"I never claimed there wasn't a drought. I just said (in the context of the time) that drought (in general) wasn't unusual. " - UbVonTard
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012

Ontario's fruit farmers devastated by April frost
Crop losses near 100 percent

http://www.ctvnew...1.807831

"This is another VendiTard lie. I caught him ,red-handed, lying about cherry crop damage that hadn't occured." - UbVonTard

UbVonTard was provided with multiple links documenting the crop losses.

He claimed that the reports were lies and that there was no frost damage.

He is a congenital liar.

djr
4.1 / 5 (8) Aug 27, 2012
"Most of those are taglines from Vendicar Decarian that I simply repost back to him." This is not accurate. I carefully looked back through the thread - and selected language that you had initiated. Each of those words were insults - that you yourself initiated towards another poster. I acknowledge that I have been guilty of insulting other posters in the past - for which I apologize. I now believe that kind of dialogue undermines my credibility, and justifies others for ignoring anything I have to say further. I was trying to point out that you so clearly try to take the moral high ground with your claim of only being interested in truth, and facts, and science. You state that name calling is a poor excuse for dialogue. You then engage in the exact behavior you criticize. And then you dismiss the contradiction as - those are just tag lines I posted back. Odd!
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012

"License is not ownership. That is why the word "license" is used and not the word "ownership"." - VD

UBVontard responds...

"Meaning, it is legally owned by them." - UbVonTard UbVonTard

VD Responds

"License is not ownership. That is why the word "license" is used and not the word "ownership"." - VD

UbVonTard then responds...

""License" refers to dispensation, not ownership." - UbVonTard

In UbVonTard's Universe, words that mean one thing today, apparently mean something else tomorrow.

For him, and his denialist Ilk, there is no objective reality. There are only various shades of deceit, and reality is defined by what he is allowed to get away with.

Filth.
Vendicar_Decarian
3.7 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
That it is the coldest period of the Antarctic winter...

"So what do record cold temperatures in the Antarctic mean?" - UbVonTard

Moron....
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
"UbVonTard has dishonestly misquoted the text of the presentation and changed the word "hadcrut" used in the presentation to "hadcrut3" which is not stated." - VD

"Idiot. That's just a typo." - UbVonTard

You Liar. The wording is a verbal narration and hence there is no typo as there is no transcribed text.

"It makes no difference to the context. HADCrut3 is a HADCrut dataset." - UbVonTard

The narrator in the video is a MET scientist who in part describes how HadCrut3 omits portions of the North and South Poles, and how HadCrut4 does a better job of including them.

UbVontard claims that the scientists admission is not relevant to his misuse of HadCrut3 as a "global" dataset, when it actually omits the polar regions.

Is UbVonTard even capable of thinking rationally?

It Doesn't appear if he is.

Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
I reported the crop damage as it was occurring - on the nights of the frost. Published reports of the damage in the press didn't show up for a couple of weeks.

"Later tart cherry crop damage did occur and he's trying to claim this is the crop damage he claimed (6 weeks before it actually happened)." - UbVonTard

How is it that I knew about the damage before UbVonTard was presented with press reports?

That is simple. I know that soft fruit can not sustain -6'C temps for any significant period of time, and weather maps of the regions suffering the damage showed -6'C lows for nearly a week.

UbVonTard repeatedly denied that the damage was real, and repeatedly claimed that I was lying when in fact recent history shows that it was he who was the liar.

He did the same thing with the ongoing U.S. drought. Claiming that crops were at record highs.

He did the same thing when he repeatedly claimed that last year's U.S. winter that was missing a winter, was "in no way unusual."

Filth.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Idiot.

"Another lie on your part. That the confidence can deviate from the mean, in no way affects the apparent trend."

Confidence limits do not "deviate from the mean".

Confidence limits are a means by which computed numbers are applicable to the real world.

With your data set, the 90 percent confidence limits for the slope of the curve - not the mean as you ignorantly put it - are ten times larger than the slope that you claim.

This would be similar to you claiming that the average height of people was falling by 2 inches per decade when in fact your numbers show that the real trend could be anywhere between an increase of 22 inches a decade or a shrinkage of 18 inches per year.

With errors like that, there is no statistical validity to a claim of a shrinkage of 2 inches per decade.

You show a near zero ability to understand basic grade school statistics beyond an ability to compute simple averages. Your ability to conceive of any other kind of statistic is ZERO.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Wrong again Tard Boy.

HadCrut3 simply "OMITS" polar regions for which they had no coverage at the time.

By omitting a region the data set becomes only a subset of the true globe.

"It is, and you proved it with your own reference. They added regions of temperature that weren't previously included (or even measured), and only extrapolated (guessed) what the previous comparable data would be (apparently, in order to elevate their "warming trend")." - UbVonTard

You are transparent.

You insist on using the outdated HadCrut3 data set specifically because it has built into it a bias to colder temperatures because it omits large regions of the rapidly warming poles.

And since deceit, dishonesty and denial is how you validate your Conservative ideology, you continue to use HadCrut3 in order to perpetuate the lie.

Filth.
Vendicar_Decarian
4.2 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
The temperatures on James Ross Island are determined through proxies such as relative isotopic abundances in mollusk shells that were growing at the time, the with of growth rings in those shells, the size and type of carbonate grains in the soil, and a host of other measurements.

"Like anyone was there with a thermometer 1,000 years ago!" - UbVonTard

UbVonTard's is not only ignorant of early high school statistics, but ignorant of science in general.

SteveS
5 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2012
The records are starting to fall

http://www.eorc.j...825.html
Vendicar_Decarian
4.3 / 5 (6) Aug 27, 2012
Arctic sea ice area has been producing record lows for the last several days.

Dramatically lower than all previous years.

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

http://arctic.atm...ive.html
runrig
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012

Secondly, you complain that I'm "using weather as a cherry-pick in my climate agenda." and then go on to use weather as a cherry-pick in YOUR climate agenda (can you say, "hypocrite").

And thirdly, you have the mistaken impression that I have a "climate agenda."



Not hypocritical at all - I was merely turning your argument on it's head ( by way of irony ). As I clearly implied, you can't use weather to argue a climate trend. And yes, you do have an agenda - arguing that the last 10 yrs have seen no cooling, whilst using nonsense statistical analysis. No comment on the Radiosonde sourced tropospheric data for Antarctica I see.
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Arctic seaice shows no significant reduction over the last three years

http://www.woodfo....7/trend

It's all a scam by those evil scientists
SteveS
5 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Another official announcement

http://nsidc.org/...icenews/
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Why does your claimed "cooling trend" vanish when 8 months of data are removed from the front of your Dataset in order to provide a true 10 year window rather than a 10.8 year window?

http://www.woodfo....8/trend
LOL! You just showed no global warming for the last 10 years, and you don't even realize it! LMFAO!

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
I am calling you a Liar for telling yet another Lie of Omission.

"So now you're calling the Russian scientists liars?" - Uba
To what "Lie of Omission" do you refer? Surely you don't expect me to post entire science articles within a 1000 character limit, do you? That's what the links are for. Why don't you try using them?

Your chronic lying is childishly trivial to spot and expose.

Others have done the same regarding your dishonest statements.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
VendiTard:

It appears that your intellectual capacity is that of a pre-high school student.

"Then you should be using them on yourself, profusely." - UbVonTard

Intellecutal Children like yourself should generally keep their ignorant mouths shut until they have the competence to say something that doesn't wreak of stupidity.


It appears that your intellectual capacity is that of a pre-high school student.

Intellecutal Children like yourself should generally keep their ignorant mouths shut until they have the competence to say something that doesn't wreak of stupidity.

Seriously, have you even noticed the link I was wondering about?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
UbVonTard is caught in yet another lie.

"I didn't alter the definition by even one letter"

Earlier when UbVonTard's lie was exposed, and the full definition From AR4 was posted, his response was.

"I edited it for length, but the part I used covers all the relevant information" - Uba

Now he claims that he didn't alter it "one letter".
It's true. Abbreviating it to fit it into a maximum 1,000 characters is not altering. The link to the full definition has been provided along with the definition numerous times.

And besides, please explain why it matters. What part of the definition I left out is so important to you?

Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, Lies, and then Stupidity is all VendiTard has.

Lying is VendiTard's only method of argument. He is a typical Conservative in that regard.

How many lies now over the last 3 days? I can't count that high.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
So which is it Uba Liar.

Did you not edit one letter? Or did you "edit it for length".

Either you are lying now or lying before.
Another VendiTard lie. This is a Red Herring argument. I never said I didn't edit it. I said I didn't alter even one letter. I edited it for space considerations, while being careful not to alter the meaning. I retained the full meaning, without even altering a single letter. I just chopped off the redundant portion. But since I provided the link to the full definition numerous times, I'm simply going to argue I provided the full definition numerous times. You're lying by not admitting I've done so.

But, as you're just a chatbot, I guess there's not much point in this petty side argument.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
"And weather reporting is a very certain science. Temperature records are quite reliable and well maintained."

The issue is noise in the signal, not measurement error.

Since you can't comprehend the difference, you will never be capable of posting a rational argument.
Idiot...

What noise in the signal? There's no appreciable noise in the signal. The signal is the very reliably measured data.

Please explain the source of this "noise" you speak of.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Aug 27, 2012
@davidW

He lived to 82 you moron; US life expectancy at birth 1930 was 58 years.

The best evidence we have, which is still pretty fucking poor, is that vegetarianism offers no health benefit.

Western vegetarians do a cluster of other known beneficial things compared to health-indifferent omnivores. When you study the health benefit of vegetarianism, you're actually studying the health benefit of (on average) exercising more, eating more grean leafy vegetables, eating vitamin supplements, eating more nuts, eating more fruits, drinking less sugary beverages, eating less candy, eating less table fat, drinking more wine, eating more legumes etc. There are so many confounding factors that you can't make heads or tails of it.

However, if you look in other areas of the world where people don't eat meat for religious reasons but eat an otherwise normal diet, there is no benefit or in some cases a detriment(B-12 deficient diets causes heart disease).
Wrong thread, moron.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
If HadCrut3 was global - moron - then it would not have omitted large regions of the north and south poles, and it wouldn't have been replaced with HadCrut4 which does a better job of including the polar regions in total.
As I've shown to you numerous time - moron - the Met Office Hadley Centre claims it is a global dataset and they state to use it for current data.

"It's a standard global climatological dataset." - Uba
Indeed.

You have been told this repeatedly. Your failure to correct your past mistakes, and your insistance on repeating those mistakes when you have been corrected, is the behavior of a congenital liar.

I have never encountered a VendiTard who wasn't a congenital and perpetual liar.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Your dataset does not include large regions around the north and south poles, and hence is not global, and hence not representitive of global temperatures, contrary to your continual lies.
So? I don't live there, why should I care?

And, GISTEMP certainly includes the poles, and it also shows no global warming for at least 10 years.

Further your data set is dominated by noise,
What noise? The signal is quite clear.

Therefore your claimed "trend" is not only not global, but has no statistical relevance at all.
You don't know a thing about statistics, do you?

"Now this is a bold-faced misrepresentation on your part. You substituted a different dataset and are now trying to pass it off as mine. Here's the data I referenced:" - Uba

You have been corrected on these issues dozens and dozens of times, yet you continue to repeat the same lie over and over again.
You were caught in an intentional lie. Why don't you just admit it?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 27, 2012
Which is it Tard Boy? Are you lying now? Or were you lying before?

"There is no drought. There has never been as much Corn and Wheat as there is today." - Venditard, not Uba

"I never claimed there wasn't a drought. I just said (in the context of the time) that drought (in general) wasn't unusual. " - UbVonTard
Now this is just despicable. Now you're making stuff up and attributing it to me.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
Ontario's fruit farmers devastated by April frost
Crop losses near 100 percent

"This is another VendiTard lie. I caught him ,red-handed, lying about cherry crop damage that hadn't occured." - Uba

UbVonTard was provided with multiple links documenting the crop losses.

He claimed that the reports were lies and that there was no frost damage.
More Venditard lies. I challenged him at the time to provide even one reference to his then claimed crop damage. He couldn't provide any. And a Google search couldn't find any either. But crop damage did occur about 6 weeks later.

VendiTard is a congenital liar.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
"Most of those are taglines from Vendicar Decarian that I simply repost back to him." This is not accurate. I carefully looked back through the thread - and selected language that you had initiated.
Either you are lying, or you failed to make the association.

Each of those words were insults - that you yourself initiated towards another poster.
"Tard" is Vendicar Decarian's own catchphrase. So are most of the rest. I generally only initiate with "idiot" or "moron."

And so I acknowledge that I have been guilty of insulting other posters in the past - for which I apologize. I now believe that kind of dialogue undermines my credibility, and justifies others for ignoring anything I have to say further.
I agree. But when the other party initiates and initiates and initiates, it's only natural to strike back occasionally.

I mean just look at Vendicar's posts. They're practically dripping with vile condemnations.

I report him regularly. It doesn't seem to help.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
I was trying to point out that you so clearly try to take the moral high ground with your claim of only being interested in truth, and facts, and science. You state that name calling is a poor excuse for dialogue. You then engage in the exact behavior you criticize. And then you dismiss the contradiction as - those are just tag lines I posted back. Odd!
Only because it's true. I generally do not initiate, but I will defend myself. I mean just look at the numerous lies Vendicar has been saying about me. Wouldn't you defend yourself under the same circumstances?

Anyway, if you would like to engage in a cordial discussion, I would very much enjoy participating. And I hope it would serve as an example to the rest of the forum members.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 27, 2012
"License is not ownership. That is why the word "license" is used and not the word "ownership"." - VD

UBVontard responds...

"Meaning, it is legally owned by them." - UbVonTard UbVonTard

VD Responds

"License is not ownership. That is why the word "license" is used and not the word "ownership"." - VD

UbVonTard then responds...

""License" refers to dispensation, not ownership." - UbVonTard

In UbVonTard's Universe, words that mean one thing today, apparently mean something else tomorrow.

For him, and his denialist Ilk, there is no objective reality. There are only various shades of deceit, and reality is defined by what he is allowed to get away with.

Filth.
Moron. In this context, to give license means the owner allows usage. Therefore, in this context, license means ownership.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2012
"UbVonTard has dishonestly misquoted the text of the presentation and changed the word "hadcrut" used in the presentation to "hadcrut3" which is not stated." - VD

"Idiot. That's just a typo." - UbVonTard

You Liar. The wording is a verbal narration and hence there is no typo as there is no transcribed text.
Idiot. I transcribed it myself.

You also made a mistake in your transcription. Check it for yourself.

Is VendiTard even capable of thinking rationally?

It Doesn't appear if he is.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2012
I reported the crop damage as it was occurring - on the nights of the frost. Published reports of the damage in the press didn't show up for a couple of weeks.
Liar. You couldn't even provide a frost advisory.

How is it that I knew about the damage before Uba was presented with press reports?
You didn't. You were making up lies.

That is simple. I know that soft fruit can not sustain -6'C temps for any significant period of time, and weather maps of the regions suffering the damage showed -6'C lows for nearly a week.
Fine. Show me regional temperature records dating from the time of your first claim which supports this. Good luck with that.

Uba repeatedly denied that the damage was real, and repeatedly claimed that I was lying when in fact recent history shows that it was he who was the liar.
Because you were (and are) lying. You only got lucky that crop damage did eventually occur. However, this doesn't change the the fact you lied.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2012
He did the same thing with the ongoing U.S. drought. Claiming that crops were at record highs.
At the time, they were. I even provided current agricultural reports that talked about expected bumper harvests. Sadly, much of the expected harvest was lost.

He did the same thing when he repeatedly claimed that last year's U.S. winter that was missing a winter, was "in no way unusual."
It wasn't unusual at the time. And it's still only the fourth warmest U.S. winter. Only as it lead into an unusually warm and dry Spring did it become apparent it was more than just a fleeting condition.

Filth.
Indeed you are.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2012
Idiot.

"Another lie on your part. That the confidence can deviate from the mean, in no way affects the apparent trend."

Confidence limits do not "deviate from the mean".
Idiot. According to you, the confidence interval deviates from the mean by 2 sigma.

Confidence limits are a means by which computed numbers are applicable to the real world.
They a fudge factor for chaotic (noisy) data.

With your data set, the 90 percent confidence limits for the slope of the curve - not the mean as you ignorantly put it - are ten times larger than the slope that you claim.
No they aren't. There is no confidence interval, as the data is a complete set.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2012
This would be similar to you claiming that the average height of people was falling by 2 inches per decade when in fact your numbers show that the real trend could be anywhere between an increase of 22 inches a decade or a shrinkage of 18 inches per year.
No it isn't. It's more like measuring every single person over time and making a conclusion based on averaging the data. The data is unequivocal.

With errors like that, there is no statistical validity to a claim of a shrinkage of 2 inches per decade.
The only error lies in your interpretation.

You show a near zero ability to understand basic grade school statistics beyond an ability to compute simple averages. Your ability to conceive of any other kind of statistic is ZERO.
Obviously, it is you who doesn't understand statistics.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2012
HadCrut3 simply "OMITS" polar regions for which they had no coverage at the time.
Another lie. HADCrut3 incorporates some polar temperatures.

By omitting a region the data set becomes only a subset of the true globe.
Generally, all global datasets omit most of these regions. Some "estimate" the polar temperatures (make up numbers), while HADCrut3 sticks with the measured values within their grid parameters.

"There are very few observations in the Arctic and Antarctic. GISS attempts to estimate temperatures in these areas, HadCRUT3 does not. This is the major source of difference between the analyses, ...There is a third global analysis produced by NCDC that also uses interpolation to fill in some of the gaps." - Met Office

http://www.metoff...dex.html

So now will you admit HADCrut3 is a global dataset?

How about admitting Gistemp also shows no global warming for at least 10 years?

Why aren't you happy about this?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Aug 28, 2012
The temperatures on James Ross Island are determined through proxies such as relative isotopic abundances in mollusk shells that were growing at the time, the with of growth rings in those shells, the size and type of carbonate grains in the soil, and a host of other measurements.
Yeah, like that's a good substitute for a thermometer.

VendiTard is not only ignorant of early high school statistics, but ignorant of science in general.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2012
The records are starting to fall

http://www.eorc.j...825.html
Indeed:

http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=41

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Aug 28, 2012
Not hypocritical at all - I was merely turning your argument on it's head ( by way of irony ). As I clearly implied, you can't use weather to argue a climate trend.
Which is what I've been saying all along. But these knuckleheads latch on to any sign of unusual warmth, whilst ignoring equally unusual cold phenomena.

And yes, you do have an agenda - arguing that the last 10 yrs have seen no cooling,
That's not my agenda. The only agenda I have is to expose the truth. I don't really care very much whether it's cooling or not, so long as the truth of it is known.

whilst using nonsense statistical analysis.
So the same datasets used to warn against global warming are suddenly useless when global warming is on hiatus?

No comment on the Radiosonde sourced tropospheric data for Antarctica I see.
What about it?

Did you know Antarctica set a new cold record?

http://amrc.ssec....hp?id=41
Caliban
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2012

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

ubybooby,

My, my, my --you certainly have gone to a lot of effort to get in the last word, haven't you?

If you would apply even a fraction of that effort into obtaining and understanding the facts of the matter, the world --well, at least we visitors here at PHYSorg-- would be a happier place!

That's a lot to ask of a diehard denialist, I know --so I won't be holding my breath.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2012
If you would apply even a fraction of that effort into obtaining and understanding the facts of the matter, ...PHYSorg-- would be a happier place!
What, that I have presented, are you disputing?

The fact is, Global warming ceased at least 10 years ago:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

rockwolf1000
2.3 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2012

I work for one of the most prestigious and forward thinking proactive environmental protection organizations in the world. What do you do?

Let me guess... You're a janitor?
rockwolf1000
3 / 5 (2) Aug 29, 2012
If you would apply even a fraction of that effort into obtaining and understanding the facts of the matter, ...PHYSorg-- would be a happier place!
What, that I have presented, are you disputing?

The fact is, Global warming ceased at least 10 years ago:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend


Well for starters you deny that AGW is even possible, then you claim that it ceased 10 years ago. Well which is it? Or have you got all your facetious arguments all mixed up again?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Aug 29, 2012
I work for one of the most prestigious and forward thinking proactive environmental protection organizations in the world. What do you do?


Let me guess... You're a janitor?
Sure. Only I'm a janitor for the world.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2012
If you would apply even a fraction of that effort into obtaining and understanding the facts of the matter, ...PHYSorg-- would be a happier place!
What, that I have presented, are you disputing?

The fact is, Global warming ceased at least 10 years ago:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend]http://www.woodfo...02/trend[/url]
Well for starters you deny that AGW is even possible,
Strawman. When did I supposedly make that claim?

then you claim that it ceased 10 years ago. Well which is it? Or have you got all your facetious arguments all mixed up again?
Strawman and a Non Sequitur. Good job.

I claimed: "Global warming ceased at least 10 years ago." I didn't claim AGW ceased 10 years ago and I didn't say there hasn't been any global warming.

Try again, loser.

http://www.woodfo...02/trend]http://www.woodfo...02/trend[/url]

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2012
If you would apply even a fraction of that effort into obtaining and understanding the facts of the matter, ...PHYSorg-- would be a happier place!
What, that I have presented, are you disputing?

The fact is, Global warming ceased at least 10 years ago:

http://www.woodfo...02/trend]http://www.woodfo...02/trend[/url]

Well for starters you deny that AGW is even possible,
Strawman. When did I supposedly make that claim?

then you claim that it ceased 10 years ago. Well which is it? Or have you got all your facetious arguments all mixed up again?
Strawman and a Non Sequitur. Good job.

I claimed: "Global warming ceased at least 10 years ago." I didn't claim AGW ceased 10 years ago and I didn't say there hasn't been any global warming

Try again, loser

http://www.woodfo...02/trend]http://www.woodfo...02/trend[/url]
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Aug 30, 2012
Caliban
1 / 5 (1) Aug 31, 2012

Repeating, ad nauseam, the same fallacies over and over and over and over and over does not make them any more true -which is to say- they remain fallacies even by the most charitable definition, but are really just lies, ubybooby, since you knowingly misrepresent them as facts.

And your claim of employment by an environmental organization does not establish superior knowledge, credentials, or credibility.

This is known to everyone here, and the Last Word does not magically transmute your tissue of lies into the incorruptible gold of Truth.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Aug 31, 2012
Repeating, ad nauseam, the same fallacies over and over ...does not make them any more true
Indeed. Repeatedly claiming the world is warming, when it isn't, won't make it any more true.

http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Why don't you try using a little science in your arguments. Or, is it that you haven't got any?

Caliban
1 / 5 (2) Sep 02, 2012


http://www.woodfo...02/trend

Why don't you try using a little science in your arguments. Or, is it that you haven't got any?



To the contrary -it's that I don't see any point in providing you with free therapy to disabuse you of your idee fixe.