Research reports climate change could cripple Southwestern forests

Sep 30, 2012
This shows bare branches and rust-colored foliage denote dead and dying trees in Colorado's Front Range. Credit: Copyright Daniel Griffin.

Combine the tree-ring growth record with historical information, climate records, and computer-model projections of future climate trends, and you get a grim picture for the future of trees in the southwestern United States. That's the word from a team of scientists from Los Alamos National Laboratory, the U.S. Geological Survey, the University of Arizona, and other partner organizations.

If the Southwest is warmer and drier in the near future, widespread tree death is likely and would cause substantial changes in the distribution of forests and of species, the researchers report this week in the journal Nature Climate Change.

Southwestern forests grow best when total winter precipitation is high combined with a summer and fall that aren't too hot and dry.

The team developed a Forest Severity Index that combines the amount of winter precipitation, late summer and fall temperatures, and late summer and fall precipitation into one number.

"The new 'Forest Drought-' that Williams devised from seasonal precipitation and temperature-related variables matches the records of changing forest conditions in the Southwest remarkably well," said co-author Thomas W. Swetnam, director of the UA Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research.

"Among all climate variables affecting trees and forests that have ever been studied, this new drought index has the strongest correlation with combined tree growth, tree death from drought and insects, and area burned by that I have ever seen."

A. Park Williams of Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico is the lead author of the paper, "Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality." Six of the paper's 15 authors are at the UA. A complete list of authors is at the bottom of this release.

To figure out which climate variables affect forests, the researchers aligned some 13,000 tree core samples with known temperature and moisture data. The team also blended in events known from tree-ring, archaeological and other paleorecords, such as the late 1200s megadrought that drove the ancient Pueblo Indians out of longtime settlements such as those at Mesa Verde, Colo.

By comparing the tree-ring record to climate data collected in the Southwest since the late 1800s, the scientists identified two climate variables that estimate annual southwestern tree-growth variability with exceptional accuracy: total winter precipitation and average summer-fall atmospheric evaporative demand, a measure of the overall dryness of the environment.

Williams said, "Atmospheric evaporative demand is primarily driven by temperature. When air is warmer, it can hold more water vapor, thus increasing the pace at which soil and plants dry out. The air literally sucks the moisture out of the soil and plants."

Finding that summer-fall atmospheric evaporative demand is just as important as winter precipitation has critical implications for the future of southwestern forests, he said.

This Douglas-fir sample from the Southwest has annual tree rings dating back to the year 1527. The narrowing of the rings that formed from the 1560s through the 1590s indicates that the tree grew little during the 16th century megadrought. Credit: Copyright Daniel Griffin.

These trends, the researchers noted, are already occurring in the Southwest, where temperatures generally have been increasing for the past century and are expected to continue to do so because of accumulating greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.

There still will be wet winters, but increased frequency of warmer summers will put more stress on trees and limit their growth after wet winters, the study reports.

"We can use the past to learn about the future," Williams said. "For example, satellite fire data from the past 30 years show that there has been a strong and exponential relationship between the regional tree-ring drought-stress record and the area of southwestern forests killed by wildfire each year. This suggests that if drought intensifies, we can expect forests not only to grow more slowly, but also to die more quickly."

The study points out that very large and severe wildfires, bark-beetle outbreaks and a doubling of the proportion of dead trees in response to early 21st-century warmth and drought conditions are evidence that a transition of southwestern forest landscapes toward more open and drought-tolerant ecosystems may already be underway.

And while 2000s drought conditions have been severe, the regional tree-ring record indicates there have been substantially stronger megadrought events during the past 1,000 years.

The strongest megadrought occurred during the second half of the 1200s and is believed to have played an important role in the abandonment of ancient Puebloan cultural centers throughout the Southwest. The most recent megadrought occurred in the late 1500s and appears to have been strong enough to kill many trees in the Southwest.

"When we look at our tree-ring record, we see this huge dip in the 1580s when all the tree rings are really tiny," Williams said. "Following the 1500s megadrought, tree rings get wider, and there was a major boom in new trees. Nearly all trees we see in the Southwest today were established after the late-1500s drought, even though the species we evaluated can easily live longer than 400 years. So that event is a benchmark for us today. If forest drought stress exceeds late 1500 levels, we expect that a lot of trees are going to be dying."

Will future forest drought-stress levels reach or exceed those of the megadroughts of the 1200s and 1500s?

Using climate-model projections, the team projected that such megadrought-type forest drought-stress conditions will be exceeded regularly by the 2050s. If climate-model projections are correct, forest drought-stress levels during even the wettest and coolest years of the late 21st century will be more severe than the driest, warmest years of the previous megadroughts.

The study forecasts that during the second half of this century, about 80 percent of years will exceed megadrought levels.

The current drought, which began in 2000, is a natural case study about what to expect from projected climate scenarios. While average winter precipitation totals in the Southwest have not been exceptionally low, average summer-fall evaporative demand is the highest on record.

And trees, Williams says, are paying the price. The team concluded forest drought stress during more than 30 percent of the past 13 years, including 2011 and 2012, matched or exceeded the megadrought-type levels of the 1200s and 1500s. The only other 13-year periods when megadrought-type conditions were reached with such frequencies in the past 1,000 years were during the megadroughts themselves.

UA co-author Daniel Griffin said, "This research is distinctly different from work done in a similar vein in two ways: One, it puts these projections for the future in a concrete historical context, and two, it shows that the impacts on the forests will not be restricted to one species or one site at low elevation, but in fact will take place at forests across the landscape."

Griffin is a doctoral candidate in the UA School of Geography and Development.

Co-author Craig D. Allen, a research ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey, said, "Consistent with many other recent studies, these findings provide compelling additional evidence of emerging global risks of amplified drought-induced and extensive forest die-off as the planet warms."

Explore further: EPA staff says agency needs to be tough on smog

More information: The article, "Temperature as a potent driver of regional forest drought stress and tree mortality," is written by A. Park Williams (Los Alamos National Laboratory), Craig D. Allen (U.S. Geological Survey), Alison K. Macalady (University of Arizona), Daniel Griffin (UA), Connie A. Woodhouse (UA), David M. Meko (UA), Thomas W. Swetnam (UA), Sara A. Rauscher (LANL), Richard Seager (Columbia Univ.), Henri D. Grissino-Mayer (Univ. of Tennessee), Jeffrey S. Dean (UA), Edward R. Cook (Columbia Univ.), Chandana Gangodagamage (LANL), Michael Cai (LANL) and Nate G. McDowell (LANL).

Related Stories

Scientists find evidence of Roman period megadrought

Nov 04, 2011

A new study at the UA's Laboratory of Tree-Ring Research has revealed a previously unknown multi-decade drought period in the second century A.D. The findings give evidence that extended periods of aridity ...

Forest mortality and climate change: The big picture

Sep 09, 2012

Over the past two decades, extensive forest death triggered by hot and dry climatic conditions has been documented on every continent except Antarctica. Forest mortality due to drought and heat stress is expected to increase ...

Recommended for you

Shell files new plan to drill in Arctic

Aug 29, 2014

Royal Dutch Shell has submitted a new plan for drilling in the Arctic offshore Alaska, more than one year after halting its program following several embarrassing mishaps.

Reducing water scarcity possible by 2050

Aug 29, 2014

Water scarcity is not a problem just for the developing world. In California, legislators are currently proposing a $7.5 billion emergency water plan to their voters; and U.S. federal officials last year ...

User comments : 90

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

JoeBlue
1.8 / 5 (19) Sep 30, 2012
Oh so now it's the temperature rather than the lack of precipitation...

I wish I could make erroneous public statements like that and not get fired for it.
Howhot
3.2 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2012
I wish I could make erroneous public statements like that and not get fired for it.

I thought that's what you AGW deniers always did.
jonnyboy
2.3 / 5 (18) Sep 30, 2012
"If the Southwest is warmer and drier in the near future, widespread tree death is likely and would cause substantial changes in the distribution of forests and of species, the researchers report this week in the journal Nature Climate Change."

Really? I am absolutely amazed that someone had the genius to figure out that trees are likely to die IF the desert heats up and the rainfall stops. My congratulations to the researchers.
mememine69
1.5 / 5 (17) Sep 30, 2012
First we had Reefer Madness and now Climate Blame and history is laughing at you remaining end of the world freaks of climate change. You don't see that Climate change belief has vanished and Romney thanks you for fear mongering votes his way as you remaining believers sheepishly cling to the general headlines of;
"All of science agrees climate change is real, is happening and could cause a crisis unstoppable warming."
Yes that's right, "COULD"! HELP MY HOUSE IS ON FIRE, sort of, could be, maybe?
Not one single scientific warning says it "WILL" happen despite being "at the brink". So why are you climate change believing planet lovers not demanding that science be clear about the dangers of Human caused climate crisis as only a comet hit could be worse.
How close "to the brink" of unstoppable warming will science take us before they finally say a crisis "is going to happen", not just might happen?
JoeBlue
1.8 / 5 (19) Sep 30, 2012
I wish I could make erroneous public statements like that and not get fired for it.

I thought that's what you AGW deniers always did.


The only thing I deny is that those supporting the AGW theory as a fact understand how the scientific method actually works. I also deny that those same people understand how peer review works, and that your theory is always under question, no matter who back's it, or who else has peer reviewed it. That is the nature of science. The only facts that exist in empiricism are those that are quantifiable. Theory can never be a fact, because if it were, it would be a Law rather than a theory.

Let me know if you need any more help understanding how science in the real world actually works.

If you wish to take the rationalist view, then the argument is different. You start by looking at what organizations are supporting the AGW theory and find out what they have to gain from the application of the policies they suggest.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (19) Sep 30, 2012
Now wait just a minute... Didn't they recently claim we'd suffer more biting winters and more precipitation as a result of AGW? ...that's right. They did:

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

and:

http://phys.org/n...722.html

This is proof AGW scientists can't predict a damned thing. All they have is hindsight.

There are no natural weather and climate variables. If it's warm, it's because of AGW. If it's cold, it's because of AGW. If it's raining, it's because of AGW. If it's sunny, it's because of AGW... If global temperatures go up, it's AGW. If global temperatures decline, it's AGW.

AGW, AGW, AGW, AGW. It's all AGW, all the time.

Don't bother trying to reason it out. Don't bother trying to explain it. It is what it is, regardless of what it is. It's AGW, baby. All the ills of the world are a result of AGW.

So, is "AGW" the new way to spell, God?

VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 30, 2012
It is astonishing that JoeBlue proclaims that the 98 percent of the worlds scientists who accept global warming as reality are in his opinion, simply do not understand how science works.

The observed facts are that the globe is warming. Just as theory predicts.

Poor Joe Blue. His lunacy reminds me of that shown by Joe Camel.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (21) Sep 30, 2012
It is astonishing that JoeBlue proclaims that the 98 percent of the worlds scientists who accept global warming as reality are in his opinion, simply do not understand how science works.

The observed facts are that the globe is warming. Just as theory predicts.
This is another Vendibot lie. The world hasn't warmed in at least 11 years:

http://www.woodfo...84/trend

...at least 15 years using the long held gold standard:

http://www.woodfo...84/trend

Meyer
2.6 / 5 (7) Sep 30, 2012
Let's hope that whatever caused the 16th-Century Megadrought and the Little Ice Age doesn't happen again.
Urgelt
3.7 / 5 (15) Sep 30, 2012
You tell 'em, tin foil hat guys. You know more about science than scientists know, your gut says so!

When you post links to 'evidence,' ubavontuba, if the 'evidence' hasn't been peer reviewed, it's not going to carry any weight with scientists. Darn those scientists and their rigid rules, eh?
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (17) Sep 30, 2012
UbVonTard's own sources doesn't agree with him.

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

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

"The world hasn't warmed in at least 11 years:" - UbVontard

He is a perpetual liar.
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (13) Sep 30, 2012
It is the defining scientific reality of our time.

"AGW, AGW, AGW, AGW. It's all AGW, all the time." - UbVontard

And you are on record as claiming that you will continue to lie about it until you are dead.
JoeBlue
1.7 / 5 (17) Sep 30, 2012
It is astonishing that JoeBlue proclaims that the 98 percent of the worlds scientists who accept global warming as reality are in his opinion, simply do not understand how science works.

The observed facts are that the globe is warming. Just as theory predicts.

Poor Joe Blue. His lunacy reminds me of that shown by Joe Camel.


That you are incapable of quoting me properly without lying in your statement just furthers my first post. You are nothing more than a troll here on this site, and that is all you ever have been, an uneducated irrational and hate filled troll.

No one here that posts on this site should attempt to qualify anything to you. They shouldn't even reply to you. The only thing you deserve in every single I have read from you is 1 star, because we can't give you negative ones.
Sanescience
1 / 5 (5) Oct 01, 2012
Everyone pines over climate change and for numerous reasons of greed and politics CO2 is the popular villain.

And what will become of this world of growing populations and declining resources. Where all the worlds rivers are diverted and evaporated where deserts once existed and little reaches the oceans any more. Of declining forests and depopulating oceans. Cities change the heat distribution on land and planes fly at high altitude injecting water moister into formerly very dry layers of the atmosphere? I'm guessing "climate change" is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

I'm going to guess though that the next global food shortage will drop parts of Asia/Europe/Middle East into big wars and CO2 will be far down the list of things to worry about.
ubavontuba
2 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2012
When you post links to 'evidence,' ubavontuba, if the 'evidence' hasn't been peer reviewed, it's not going to carry any weight with scientists. Darn those scientists and their rigid rules, eh?
What have I posted that supposedly isn't peer reviewed? Maybe you think I just made up the The Met Office Hadley Centre temperature statistics, all by myself?

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (15) Oct 01, 2012
Again, Vendibot is caught in a lie:

Uba's own sources doesn't agree with him.

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


Vendibot has difficulty counting to as high as eleven. Maybe he should remove a shoe and start using his toes too.

http://www.woodfo...84/trend

http://www.woodfo...00/trend
He also seems to have trouble being honest about my sources.

http://www.woodfo...84/trend

Vendibot is a perpetual liar.

JoeBlue
2 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2012
Everyone pines over climate change and for numerous reasons of greed and politics CO2 is the popular villain.

And what will become of this world of growing populations and declining resources....

I'm going to guess though that the next global food shortage will drop parts of Asia/Europe/Middle East into big wars and CO2 will be far down the list of things to worry about.


There are a lot of claims without substantiation that you made in that post.

Asia is hardly hurting for food. What Asia is hurting from are economic sanctions and foreign interference in their economies. The US is making food hard to find by making unaffordable by exporting Inflation. Economic manipulations have more to do with the world's problems that running out of resources.
ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (15) Oct 01, 2012
It is the defining scientific reality of our time.

"AGW, AGW, AGW, AGW. It's all AGW, all the time." - Uba

And you are on record as claiming that you will continue to lie about it until you are dead.
No, that was you.

Why do you feel so inclined to lie about the temperature graphs? Is the truth just too much for you?

ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (14) Oct 01, 2012
@JoeBlue:
That you are incapable of quoting me properly without lying in your statement just furthers my first post. You are nothing more than a troll here on this site, and that is all you ever have been, an uneducated irrational and hate filled troll.

No one here that posts on this site should attempt to qualify anything to you. They shouldn't even reply to you. The only thing you deserve in every single I have read from you is 1 star, because we can't give you negative ones.

Actually, Vendibot is a chatbot. It can't even read the dates on these posts (and it usually can't understand the context in parentheses). It uses ad hominems because this is a mindless tactic used by chatbots for the appearance of being argumentative, without actually having to make a proper argument.

Don't expect anything more from the Vendibot. It simply isn't capable.

Birger
3.9 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2012
Warm dry Southwest = trouble for trees.
So, if it gets warmer or drier than the recorded droughts, the Southwestern forests are f¤cked.
That is hardly rocket science.
It is scary, however. Too scary for some to face reality.
JRi
2 / 5 (2) Oct 01, 2012
Sounds bad. On the other hand, California's population is growing so fast that the trees would have been cut away anyways to give room for new suburbans.
JoeBlue
2 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2012
@JoeBlue:
That you are incapable of quoting me properly without lying in your statement just furthers my first post. You are nothing more than a troll here on this site, and that is all you ever have been, an uneducated irrational and hate filled troll.

No one here that posts on this site should attempt to qualify anything to you. They shouldn't even reply to you. The only thing you deserve in every single I have read from you is 1 star, because we can't give you negative ones.

Actually, Vendibot is a chatbot. It can't even read the dates on these posts (and it usually can't understand the context in parentheses). It uses ad hominems because this is a mindless tactic used by chatbots for the appearance of being argumentative, without actually having to make a proper argument.

Don't expect anything more from the Vendibot. It simply isn't capable.



Has anyone tried IP trace to find where it's coming from yet?
rubberman
3.5 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2012
Oh so now it's the temperature rather than the lack of precipitation...

I wish I could make erroneous public statements like that and not get fired for it.


It's both genius....they say it at least 4 times in the article. And you still have your job, happy?

"Let me know if you need any more help understanding how science in the real world actually works." - Blowjob

It usually starts with reading comprehension, see above.



rubberman
3.8 / 5 (16) Oct 01, 2012
Now wait just a minute... Didn't they recently claim we'd suffer more biting winters and more precipitation as a result of AGW? ...that's right. They did:

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

This is proof AGW scientists can't predict a damned thing. All they have is hindsight.



You just linked 2 articles written about European winters and how AGW would affect them (there has been 1 winter since the predictions and it was exactly as predicted) in an attempt to discredit the observed trend with verifiable causes that THIS article is written about...try using tape instead of glue, or don't type after gluing. You rarely focus on the content of an article, this can be evidenced by the repetition of your post content. ( I have read your weather reports for the last 11-15 years 50 times, and half of the time the article mentions nothing related). Have you anything original at all or are we doomed to the same crap til they stop paying you ?
VendicarD
4 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2012
"The only thing I deny is that those supporting the AGW theory as a fact understand how the scientific method actually works." - JoeSchmoe

The Schmoe had a very amusing reaction when I pointed out that 98% of the worlds scientists view global warming as an observational fact.

"You are nothing more than a troll here on this site, and that is all you ever have been, an uneducated irrational and hate filled troll." - JoeSchmoe

One can only wonder what planet the hate filled and irrational Schmoe is living on.

Planet ConservaTard perhaps?
VendicarD
4.1 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2012
You enjoy lying with statistics.

That is why you have recently specified the start and stop dates of an outdated Hadley Center time series to three decimal places to get that cooling that you dishonestly report.

"Maybe you think I just made up the The Met Office Hadley Centre temperature statistics, all by myself?" - UbVonTard

Here is the real data...

http://www.woodfo...00/trend
VendicarD
3.9 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2012
Above UbVonTard provided a temperature series as "proof" that the globe is cooling.

Here are the start and stop times for his temperature series.

Start 2001.583
Stop 2012.584

UbVontard has cherry picked those three digit decimal fractions carefully.

Removing the fractional part produces a plot that shows warming.

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

And that is why UbVonTard is constantly found to be lying with statistics.

VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2012
http://www.woodfo...00/trend

"Why do you feel so inclined to lie about the temperature graphs?" - UbVonTard

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

http://www.woodfo...95/trend

http://www.woodfo...93/trend

Unlike UbVonTard. I'm not a liar.
VendicarD
3.8 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2012
Tard boy apparently read the title of the article, but fell asleep before he could read the first sentence.

"Didn't they recently claim we'd suffer more biting winters and more precipitation as a result of AGW? ...that's right. They did:" - UbVonTard

The first sentence being... "Counter-intuitive but true, say scientists: a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming."

The Article was talking about European winters.

Wasn't last winter in Europe particularly cold? I seem to remember UbVonTard holding that winter up as an example of how the world is cooling.

UbVonTard is a chronic liar of course.
ScooterG
1.9 / 5 (13) Oct 01, 2012
This study is tax-payer funded, cover-your-asz hogwash by government employees.
If you want to know why the forests are so incredibly sensitive to drought, insects, and fire - look no further than the forest management policies dating back 50 years or so.

Don't like the present condition of our forests?? - thank an environmentalist.
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2012
Yes. It is all just another big Gubderment/Union Conspiracy to steal your money.

"This study is tax-payer funded, cover-your-asz hogwash by government employees." - ScooTard

Now go to bed. You have school tomorrow.
rubberman
2.8 / 5 (11) Oct 01, 2012
This study is tax-payer funded, cover-your-asz hogwash by government employees.
If you want to know why the forests are so incredibly sensitive to drought, insects, and fire - look no further than the forest management policies dating back 50 years or so.

Don't like the present condition of our forests?? - thank an environmentalist.


So the government employee environmentalists caused increased temperatures and decreased precipitation....gotcha.

And arctic ice is vanishing because the chinese food I ordered on saturday arrived late. Don't like a wide open Northwest passage? Blame the chinese food delivery guys.

ubavontuba
1.8 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2012
You enjoy lying with statistics.
No, that's your game.

That is why you have recently specified the start and stop dates of an outdated Hadley Center time series to three decimal places
This is in accordance with Woodfortrees instructions. The data ends midyear, so to avoid seasonal effects it's best to start the data period similarly.

Here is the real data...
No, here is the real data:

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2012
Above UbVonTard provided a temperature series as "proof" that the globe is cooling.

Here are the start and stop times for his temperature series.

Start 2001.583
Stop 2012.584

UbVontard has cherry picked those three digit decimal fractions carefully.
Moron. The data ends at 2012.584 (2012 and 7 months). I just used a full 11 year long data series (not that you'd understand how to count to 11) starting from the latest data and moving backward in time.

Removing the fractional part produces a plot that shows warming.
Vendibot likes removing data it disgrees with.

Let's do it your way, without removing the latest data:

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

And that is why Uba is constantly found to be lying with statistics.
Why are you so anxious to ignore the most recent data?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2012
Why do you feel so inclined to lie about the temperature graphs? - uba


Unlike Uba. I'm not a liar.
Says the liar who uses data which ended 2 years ago. Here's the current data:

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

ScooterG
1.7 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2012
So the government employee environmentalists caused increased temperatures and decreased precipitation....gotcha.


There are too many trees competing for too few resources - namely food, water, and sunlight. Any gardener or farmer will tell you that proper crop spacing is vitally important. Too many plants in too small a space and none of the plants will be healthy.

The forests entered this drought era already under stress because of an environmental policy that for 50 years has mandated no logging and immediate fire suppression, ie too many trees in too small an area, all competing for food, water, and sunlight. None receive enough food, water, and sunlight, consequently all are stressed

The pine bark beetle adds his part by doing what God intended it to do - take out the weak and dying trees. Unfortunately, thanks to enviro-nazi policy, that is nearly all of the forests of the southwest.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2012
Uba apparently read the title of the article, but fell asleep before he could read the first sentence.
LOL. This appears to be your problem.

The first sentence being... "Counter-intuitive but true, say scientists: a string of freezing European winters scattered over the last decade has been driven in large part by global warming."

The Article was talking about European winters.
Vendibot can't read past the first sentence. The second article's title was: "Europe, US to see snowy, cold winters: expert" Apparently, he doesn't know what "US" stands for (probably thinks it meant us).

And besides, I never even said I was referring to a specific region.

Wasn't last winter in Europe particularly cold? I seem to remember Uba holding that winter up as an example of how the world is cooling.
LOL. When did I supposedly make that claim?

I use temperature data:

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

rubberman
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2012
Scooter, In 2003 the USDA released a 52 page report detailing the trees in the colorado front range as well as the forest maintenance proceedures which they deem to be the most effective at preserving them. From the report, " Restoration of sustainable ecological conditions can be accomplished by management activities that mimic historical structure and processes through mechanical thinning and prescribed burning, guided by scientific
studies that reconstruct the structure, composition and
processes of the historical landscape". This is a policy report, meaning they do what it says. You have cited A cause for forest degradation, not the causes here. The forest is dying regardless of these measures. The report is a good read, the link text is too long for this box but searching - Identification and Ecology of Old Ponderosa Pine Trees in the Colorado Front Range will take you right to the paper.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2012
"No, that's your game." - UbVonTard

Is that why you resort to cherry picking time periods in your "data" down to three decimal places in order to find a downward slope in the data?

Hahahahahahah

Isn't it odd that I agree with the Statisticians and 98 percent of the worlds scientists on this matter.

"Statisticians reject global cooling" -
http://www.msnbc....p-ZjAcTk

You just know when someone accuses 98 percent of the worlds scientists as being liars, the accuser (UbVonTard) has some serious mental illness to deal with.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2012
"The data ends at 2012.584" - UbVonTard

Ahahahahahahahahah..............

And when you lose the fractional part what is left is a warming trend.

Ahahahahahahaha.........

Other than exposing yourself as a chronic liar, do you think you are accomplishing anything here?
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2012

"Let's do it your way, without removing the latest data:" - UbVonTard

OOpsie... There goes your cooling trend.

Not even your own data supports your comic assertions.

VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2012
"I use temperature data:" - UbVonTard

But it's not the same data set as you used earlier. You changed from GISS global to the long outdated HadCrut3 set that omits most of the northern and southern poles.

When we switch back to Hadcrut4, your cooling vanishes.

But of course none of this matters in the slightest since as you have been told several dozen times, the error in your slope is ten times larger than the slope itself.

You Poor, numerically illiterate, dishonest, Tard.
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 01, 2012
Wasn't last winter in Europe particularly cold? I seem to remember Uba holding that winter up as an example of how the world is cooling.

"LOL. When did I supposedly make that claim?" - UbVonTard

April 17.541 2012
VendicarD
3.5 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2012
"Says the liar who uses data which ended 2 years ago. Here's the current data:" - UbVonTard

UbVonTard has been told close to 100 times now that HadCrut3 omits most of the polar regions.

Yet he persists in dishonestly trying to portray it as being globally representative in scope.

HadCrut4 has less bias, and when it is used..

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

The cooling trend that he dishonestly claims, vanishes.

Of course the slope on the plot's that UbVonTard provides have a two sigma statistical variance that is ten times larger than the slope he claims, which of course means that his claimed trend has zero statistical significance.

Poor numerically illiterate UbVonTard.

He is incapable of learning from his perpetual stream of failure.

ScooterG
2 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2012
Scooter, In 2003 the USDA released a 52 page report detailing the trees in the colorado front range as well as the forest maintenance proceedures which they deem to be the most effective at preserving them. From the report, " Restoration of sustainable ecological conditions can be accomplished by management activities that mimic historical structure and processes through mechanical thinning and prescribed burning, guided by scientific
studies that reconstruct the structure, composition and
processes of the historical landscape".


Hogwash...I can tell by the picture there has been no fire and no mechanical thinning.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2012
"Statisticians reject global cooling" -
http://www.msnbc....p-ZjAcTk
LOL. A three year old article? Is that the best you can do? No wonder you're so reluctant to use a dataset which includes the latest temperature data. LOL

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (8) Oct 01, 2012
The data ends at 2012.584 (2012 and 7 months). - Uba
And when you lose the fractional part what is left is a warming trend.
Why are you always so eager to trim away the current data?

Here it is with the current data:

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

Other than exposing yourself as a chronic liar, do you think you are accomplishing anything here?
LOL. Says the obviously exposed chronic liar.
ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2012
Let's do it your way, without removing the latest data: - Ub
OOpsie... There goes your cooling trend.
When did I claim a cooling trend? My claim is there's been no substantial global warming in at least 11 years.

Not even your own data supports your comic assertions.
LOL. Even your manipulations of the data support my claim, and you don't even know it! LOL

But if you're seeking a cooling trend, here you go:

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

ubavontuba
2.2 / 5 (10) Oct 01, 2012
"I use temperature data:" - UbVonTard

But it's not the same data set as you used earlier. You changed from GISS global to the long outdated HadCrut3 set that omits most of the northern and southern poles.
That seems only fair, as you use a dataset which omits the last two years of data. And, HadCRUT3 is the long-held gold standard. If it was good enough to raise the alarm, it's good enough today.

When we switch back to Hadcrut4, your cooling vanishes.
Only because Hadcrut4 omits the last two years of data.

But of course none of this matters in the slightest since as you have been told several dozen times, the error in your slope is ten times larger than the slope itself.
There's no error in the slope in fixed datasets. Learn a little about statistics why don't you.

You Poor, numerically illiterate, dishonest, Tard.
LOL. Chatbot ad hominems are the best you can do?

ubavontuba
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 01, 2012
Wasn't last winter in Europe particularly cold? I seem to remember Uba holding that winter up as an example of how the world is cooling.

"LOL. When did I supposedly make that claim?" - Uba

April 17.541 2012
LOL. Funny quip. But obviously you couldn't find a genuine reference.

Loser.

ubavontuba
2 / 5 (12) Oct 01, 2012
Vendibot has been told close to 100 times now that HadCrut4 omits the last two years, and uses the same polar data as hadCRUT3.

Yet he persists in dishonestly trying to portray it as being globally representative in scope.

HadCrut4 has more bias. It was specifically created to show more global warming than is actually measured. The polar data Vendibot goes on about is an extrapolation (a guess).

The zero-warming trend he falsely claims vanishes, shows up in 8 of the last 10 years of HadCRUT4 data:

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

But here's data even Vendibot can't deny:

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

rubberman
3.2 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2012
Scooter, In 2003 the USDA released a 52 page report detailing the trees in the colorado front range as well as the forest maintenance proceedures which they deem to be the most effective at preserving them. From the report, " Restoration of sustainable ecological conditions can be accomplished by management activities that mimic historical structure and processes through mechanical thinning and prescribed burning, guided by scientific
studies that reconstruct the structure, composition and
processes of the historical landscape".


Hogwash...I can tell by the picture there has been no fire and no mechanical thinning.


Wow, really? That is astounding.
ScooterG
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 02, 2012
Wow, really? That is astounding.


You are the one who implied the forest service was burning and thinning, were you not??

---

The study you cited was conducted in 2002, and suggested we need to restore the forests with thinning and prescribed burning - the implication being that we had (to date) mismanaged the forests by dis-allowing mechanical thinning and fire - exactly supporting the claims I have made.

It's great that the forest service and others have realized their mistakes and are taking corrective action - better late than never. But the rub comes when instead of acknowledging their mistake(s), they instead blame mankind via AGW.

Their actions are the epitome of scientific misconduct.

Howhot
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 02, 2012
@ScooterG, you don't know crap about AGW. Your just another propaganda piece for the right wing. How does it feel being a tool for the BS generation?

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2012
@ScooterG, you don't know crap about AGW. Your just another propaganda piece for the right wing. How does it feel being a tool for the BS generation?
Actually, as the much ballyhooed "continued global warming" and "accelerated global warming" are obvious lies, it seems apparent you're the tool.

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

So, why is sustaining these lies so important to you?

rubberman
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2012
'You are the one who implied the forest service was burning and thinning, were you not??'

Yes, as per the report, and as I said your observation is astounding. You can tell from a poor resolution shot of .05% of the area occupied by the front range what their forest maintenance practices are. This would make you the a "where's waldo" grand master.
ScooterG
1.6 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2012

Yes, as per the report, and as I said your observation is astounding. You can tell from a poor resolution shot of .05% of the area occupied by the front range what their forest maintenance practices are. This would make you the a "where's waldo" grand master.


I meant that it's obvious the forest in the picture has neither been thinned nor burned - sorry for the confusion.

rubberman
2.6 / 5 (5) Oct 03, 2012

Yes, as per the report, and as I said your observation is astounding. You can tell from a poor resolution shot of .05% of the area occupied by the front range what their forest maintenance practices are. This would make you the a "where's waldo" grand master.


I meant that it's obvious the forest in the picture has neither been thinned nor burned - sorry for the confusion.



No worries, so for the ad hoc. It might be a good follow up to see if they actually implemented the practice they knew they had to. I messed around with the enlargement and I agree the treetops are too close to each other in that photo to claim that the forest had been thinned or pocket burned.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2012
Maybe the forest service had every intention to thin and burn and "restore the forests" (a phrase I borrowed from the study rubberman cited)? Maybe their plans to quietly "restore the forests" were dashed by a small creature called the pine bark beetle, who suddenly appeared, highlighted, and capitalized on the many years of forest mis-management policy?

While I agree 100% that the southwest forests are in sad shape due to man, it's disingenuous to lay the blame on AGW (especially since AGW is not demonstrated to exist). As I said early on, this is an environmentalist/forest service CYA charade designed to mask failed forest management policy.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2012
@ScooterG, you don't know crap about AGW. Your just another propaganda piece for the right wing. How does it feel being a tool for the BS generation?



You are correct, I don't know crap about AGW. But that's okay, since no-one knows crap about AGW. It's because none of the data gathered to date is believable - it's all crap.

I'm proud to be a tool, if it helps expose fraudulent scams such as AGW.
ScooterG
1 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2012
It might be a good follow up to see if they actually implemented the practice they knew they had to. I messed around with the enlargement and I agree the treetops are too close to each other in that photo to claim that the forest had been thinned or pocket burned.


Cerro Grande fire of 2000 ring any bells? It was a prescribed burn that got away, dollar damage estimated at $1B. That fire pre-dated the study you cited, so it's been known for a long time that the forests were a disaster waiting to happen.

The question is: if we knew what needed to be done, why did we not do it?
Answer: radical environmentalism
rubberman
3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2012
"The question is: if we knew what needed to be done, why did we not do it?"

My answer would be that it was either not in the budget, or somebody brought Cerro Grande and they realized there was no way of controlling the burn.
rubberman
3 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2012
that should be "brought up" cerro grande
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2012
Adding 2 years does not make the error in the slope of the curve less than ten times your claimed slope.

We keep telling you this. You keep ignoring the reality.

By the way, I had a good laugh at your claim that you weren't cherry picking, just looking for slopes that support your views.

Ahahahahahahahah...

"Vendibot has been told close to 100 times now that HadCrut4 omits the last two years" - UbVonTard

If you can't understand science, or manage to figure out how to multiply or divide, why are you here?

Are you trying to humiliate yourself to the greatest extent possible?
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2012
Yup, and those vanishing glaciers, melting ice caps, warming oceans, increases in violent storms and this winters winter without a winter, are all just a satanic conspiracy against your
Conservative free market ideology.

Physical reality must be subservient to Free Market doctrine, just as the motion of the sun around the earth must be governed by Christian doctrine.

"You are correct, I don't know crap about AGW. But that's okay, since no-one knows crap about AGW. It's because none of the data gathered to date is believable - it's all crap." - ScooTard
VendicarD
3.3 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2012
You should become a child molester. You would be more worthy of respect.

If Ayn Rand were still alive you could kill some children and cut their legs off and she could call you a moral superman and her close friend, as she did before.

"I'm proud to be a tool" - ScooTard
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2012
And once again UbVonTard posts data from HadCrut3 knowing full well that it omits most of the polar regions that are warming the fastest.

Why he continues with posting his lie is beyond reason. It is almost as if he want's to be humiliated and exposed as a liar each and every day.

Just changing his time series to hadCrut4, which includes more of the polar regions reverses his claimed trend.

http://www.woodfo...01/trend

"Actually, as the much ballyhooed "continued global warming" and "accelerated global warming" are obvious lies, it seems apparent you're the tool." - UbVonTard

However both of these trends are entirely meaningless because the 2 sigma error in the slope is ten times larger than the slope the Tard Boy reports.

It is as is claiming that he has a dollar in his pocket plus or minus 10 dollars.

Poor UbVonTard. He is as mentally diseased as ParkerTard.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 03, 2012
I find it truly odd that UbVonTard would link to this plot and claim that the line slopes downard.

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

It is almost is if he intends to humiliate himself every day.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Oct 03, 2012
If you can't understand science, or manage to figure out how to multiply or divide, why are you here?

Are you trying to humiliate yourself to the greatest extent possible?
Says the chatbot which can't even count to 11.
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2012
I find it truly odd that Uba would link to this plot and claim that the line slopes downard.

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

It is almost is if he intends to humiliate himself every day.
Apparently Vendibot is both a liar and blind.

Why is it so eager to hide the data of the past decade?

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

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 03, 2012
Vendibot has been told close to 100 times now that HadCrut4 omits the last two years, and uses the same polar data as hadCRUT3.

Yet it persists in dishonestly trying to portray HadCRUT4 as being globally representative in scope.

HadCrut4 is biased. It was specifically created to show more global warming than is actually measured. The polar data Vendibot goes on about is merely an extrapolation (a guess).

The non-warming trend it falsely claims vanishes with HadCRUT4, shows up in the last 10 years (even though it's incomplete data, as HadCRUT4 ends 2 years ago):

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

But here's data even Vendibot can't deny...

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

...it can only pull lying switcheroos.

What's the matter with Vendibot? Is it afraid of the data?

ScooterG
1.6 / 5 (8) Oct 03, 2012

My answer would be that it was either not in the budget, or somebody brought Cerro Grande and they realized there was no way of controlling the burn.


I would agree on the budget constraints, it would take a long time and a lot of money to right 50 years of mis-management. I'm certain they had a plan (albeit weak), but the pine bark beetle stepped in and aggravated matters.

Still, there's no excuse for ducking responsibility and laying-off blame. Time to man-up and take the heat.
Howhot
3.4 / 5 (5) Oct 05, 2012
Still, there's no excuse for ducking responsibility and laying-off blame. Time to man-up and take the heat.

The problem Scooter, is you can't take the HEAT. You can't take the heat because your facts are based on delusion.

You have bought into the nonsense rightwing BS that all of your kind have bought into. Mindnumbing creationist crap from right wing crap heads.

You morons couldn't think your way out of milkshake because you have to much brain freeze to calculate square root of 3. You bunch of political hacks.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2012
And again, UbVonTard posts a graph from a subset of a data set he has publicly stated he has cherry picked to support his conclusions that the globe is cooling.

In fact the statistical error in the linear trend he includes in the plot, is ten times larger than the slope he presents.

Why UbVonTard persists in this lie day after day after day is beyond reason.

"Why is it so eager to hide the data of the past decade?" -
UbVonTard

He is clearly mentally ill.

http://www.woodfo...00/trend
ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (9) Oct 05, 2012
the statistical error in the linear trend he includes in the plot, is ten times larger than the slope he presents.
Again the Vendibot proves it is incapable of learning. And the programmers appear to have been lapse in updating the database, leaving the poor Vendibot caught in a repetitive loop.

ScooterG
1 / 5 (7) Oct 05, 2012
your facts are based on delusion.

You have bought into the nonsense rightwing BS that all of your kind have bought into. Mindnumbing creationist crap from right wing crap heads.

You morons couldn't think your way out of milkshake because you have to much brain freeze to calculate square root of 3. You bunch of political hacks.


Oh...my thinking must be flawed...

Here's an idea: let's plant twice as many seeds per acre on all of our farmland. Mechanical processes, fertilizer and water inputs won't increase much if at all. We'll double production, lower food prices, and we'll end world hunger all in one growing season! And think of all the carbon the extra foliage would sequester?

Stupid, delusional, moronic, mindnumbing, brain-frozen crap head farmers - they couldn't calculate the square root of 3. Obviously, they don't care about the earth or the people on it. They make me angry!
VendicarD
3 / 5 (4) Oct 05, 2012
The Computed trend in Global Temperature from 2001 to the present is between -0.187'C to 0.213'C (per decade) with 97 percent confidence.

The error in the trend is more than ten times larger than the trend that UbVonTard claims and has been posting for the last 2 years.

He has been told this at least once a week for the last 2 years, and yet he has failed to learn from his weekly humiliation.

The trend (per decade) is as follows

2000 0.08'C plus or minus 0.188'C
1999 0.126'C plus or minus 0.17'C
1998 0.082'C plus or minus 0.158'C
1997 0.093'C plus or minus 0.141'C
1996 0.123'C plus or minus 0.13'C
1995 0.124'C plus or minus 0.119'C
1994 0.148'C plus or minus 0.111'C
1993 0.179'C plus or minus 0.106'C
1992 0.199'C plus or minus 0.102'C
1991 0.184'C plus or minus 0.095'C
1990 0.169'C plus or minus 0.089'C

This is the 4th time UbVonTard has been presented with this chart.

UbVonTard is mentally diseased, and incapable of learning.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (6) Oct 05, 2012
Still no response from UbVonTard.

It doesn't usually take him so long to manufacture a lie.

What's up with that?
VendicarD
1.8 / 5 (5) Oct 06, 2012
Here. Let me try and call him...

Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie........
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie........
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie........
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie........
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie........
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie........
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie........
Here Tardie, Tardie, Tardie, Tardie........
Shootist
1.9 / 5 (9) Oct 06, 2012
I wish I could make erroneous public statements like that and not get fired for it.

I thought that's what you AGW deniers always did.


You have no proof. All you have is correlation. You have a changing climate. You have theories. You have models.

When your models can take the starting data from 1900 (or 1800 or 1700) and end a 100 year run in agreement with history, then you might have something worth listening to. Otherwise, you got nothing.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2012
The Computed trend in Global Temperature from 2001 to the present is between -0.187'C to 0.213'C (per decade) with 97 percent confidence.
Where did you get a decadel error of .4? Provide references.

The IPCC error is around .15 per decade:

http://www.ipcc.c...2-2.html

And the MET Office Hadley Centre states:

"Annual values are approximately accurate to +/- 0.05°C (two standard errors) for the period since 1951."

http://www.cru.ue...erature/

But none of this changes the mean trend during a fixed data series.

Here's the trend:

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

ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 06, 2012
Still no response from Uba.

It doesn't usually take him so long to reply.

What's up with that?
Unlike chatbots, I have a real life with real people.

VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2012
You can estimate it yourself by computing the standard deviation of the residuals you get after the curve fit.

"Where did you get a decadel error of .4? Provide references." - UbVonTard

Poor UbVonTard. Mentally diseased, and ignorant about virtually everything.
VendicarD
3 / 5 (2) Oct 06, 2012

"The IPCC error is around .15 per decade:" - UbVonTard

The string ".15" is not found on the page you linked to, and neither does the IPCC search feature find it in any of the sub-documents lined from the document you linked to.

Conclusion. You have been caught in yet another lie.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2012
Now UbVonTard confuses sample error with statistical error in the slope computed from those measurements.

The difference has been explained to him at least a dozen times.

His mental disease makes him completely incapable of learning.

"Annual values are approximately accurate to +/- 0.05°C (two standard errors) for the period since 1951." - UbVonTard

I can measure with absolute precision the height of people walking through a doorway.

If I do it for a week, I will get a nice time series that has 3 to 4 inches of noise dominating every sample. Over the week the deviation of the noise will form a normal distribution around some median. The signal we UbVonTard is reporting is the slow, decades long drift in the mean human height over time.

Even though the individual heights are known with exact precision, the slope of the drift in the mean will not be known because of the statistical error in the drift will be far larger than the trend itself, and is therefore most probably CONT.
VendicarD
3.7 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2012
the result of statistical noise rather than signal.

In his case, he claims that his 10 year cherry picked trend is significant when in fact the 2 sigma statistical error in the trend is 10 times larger than the trend he is reporting.

This is elementary statistics that is taught in grade 11. A Grade that UbVonTard apparently never made it through.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2012
You can estimate it yourself by computing the standard deviation of the residuals you get after the curve fit.

"Where did you get a decadel error of .4? Provide references." - UbVonTard
So you made it up from your own fart gas! Good job (not!).

You obviously don't understand the nature of the data you're pretending to analyze.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2012
The string ".15" is not found on the page you linked to, and neither does the IPCC search feature find it in any of the sub-documents lined from the document you linked to.

Conclusion. You have been caught in yet another lie.
LOL. Poor Vendibot can't figure it out from the stats provided, yet it thinks it knows better than the IPCC and the MET Office Hadley Centre. LOL.

Tell us again how you figured the error yourself from fart gas, so I can laugh some more. LOL.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 06, 2012
Now Uba confuses sample error with statistical error in the slope computed from those measurements.

I can measure with absolute precision the height of people walking through a doorway.

If I do it for a week, I will get a nice time series that has 3 to 4 inches of noise dominating every sample. Over the week the deviation of the noise will form a normal distribution around some median. The signal we Uba is reporting is the slow, decades long drift in the mean human height over time.
This is proof the Vendibot doesn't understand the nature of the data it's pretending to analyze. Each data point in the graphs already represents the mean of thousands of temperature measurements and adjustments.

Keep trying chatbot.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Oct 07, 2012
Even though the individual heights are known with exact precision, the slope of the drift in the mean will not be known because of the statistical error in the drift will be far larger than the trend itself, and is therefore most probably the result of statistical noise rather than signal.
Idiot. By definition the mean is an average. Therefore the slope will be known. The "drift" is in regard to the confidence in the measurements. The global temperature measurements are quite precise and confidence is high they do not "drift" more than .05 degrees annually.

In his case, he claims that his 10 year cherry picked trend is significant when in fact the 2 sigma statistical error in the trend is 10 times larger than the trend he is reporting.
LOL. The Vendibot appears to think the data error is cumulative. LOL.

This is elementary statistics that is taught in grade 11.
LOL. How would you know when it's taught? LOL.