Calif.'s Sierra a 'living lab' for climate change

Jun 29, 2013 by Tracie Cone
In this Aug. 7, 1903 photo from the U.S. Geological Survey is Lyell Glacier in Yosemite National Park. In parts of California's Sierra Nevada, the incursion of trees is sucking marshy meadows dry. Glaciers are melting into mere ice fields. Wildflowers are blooming earlier. And the optimal temperature zone for Giant Sequoias is predicted to rise several thousand feet higher, leaving existing trees at risk of dying over the next 100 years. As the climate warms, scientists studying one of the largest swaths of wilderness in the Continental U.S. are noting changes across national parks, national forests and 3.7 million acres of federally protected wilderness areas that are a living laboratory. (AP Photo/U.S. Geological Survey, G.K. Gilbert)

In parts of California's Sierra Nevada, marshy meadows are going dry, wildflowers are blooming earlier and glaciers are melting into ice fields.

Scientists also are predicting the optimal for giant sequoias will rise hundreds and hundreds of feet (meters), leaving trees at risk of dying over the next 100 years.

As indicators point toward a warming climate, scientists across 4 million acres (1.62 million hectares) of federally protected land are noting changes affecting everything from the massive trees that can grow to more than two-dozen (7.3 meters) across to the tiny, hamsterlike pika. But what the changes mean and whether humans should do anything to intervene are sources of disagreement among land managers.

"That's the tricky part of the debate: If humans are causing warming, does that obligate us under the laws of the National Park Service to try to counteract those effects?" said Nate Stephenson, a research ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey.

"How do you adapt to a if you're a ?" added Stephenson, who is 30 years into a study of trees in the largest wilderness in the continental U.S., Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park.

Since 1895, the average temperature across California has increased by 1.7 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius), and experts say the most visible effects of that warming occur within the Sierra Nevada, where low temperatures are rising and precipitation increasingly falls as rain rather than snow. Some models show noncoastal California warming by 2.7 degrees (1.5 Celsius) between 2000 and 2050, one of many reasons President Barack Obama pledged last week to use executive powers to cut .

The state's two largest rivers—the Sacramento and San Joaquin—originate in the Sierra. The range also is home to Lake Tahoe, the largest in North America; Mount Whitney, the highest peak in the Lower 48; and America's only groves of giant sequoias, the largest living things on earth.

There are mounting concerns about the beloved sequoias, whose sprawling, 10-foot-(three-meter)deep root systems make them especially vulnerable to drought and heat.

Because the trees exist only in such a small region, scientists are debating whether to irrigate the 65 groves in the southern Sierra to help them endure warmer temperatures. Otherwise they fear the trees could die. During the last warm, dry period 4,000 to 10,000 years ago, their numbers were greatly diminished, according to pollen evidence collected by researchers at Northern Arizona University.

"Whether we would water them certainly comes up on our climate change scenario planning," said Koren Nydick, science coordinator at Sequoia-Kings Canyon National Park. "They are a very unusual species because they're also looked on as a social artifact."

In this Sept. 5, 2004 photo provided by Hassan Basagic is Lyell Glacier in Yosemite National Park. In parts of California's Sierra Nevada, the incursion of trees is sucking marshy meadows dry. Glaciers are melting into mere ice fields. Wildflowers are blooming earlier. And the optimal temperature zone for Giant Sequoias is predicted to rise several thousand feet higher, leaving existing trees at risk of dying over the next 100 years. As the climate warms, scientists studying one of the largest swaths of wilderness in the Continental U.S. are noting changes across national parks, national forests and 3.7 million acres of federally protected wilderness areas that are a living laboratory. (AP Photo/Hassan Basagic)

Stephenson says his decades of studying conifers in Sequoia National Forest have shown they are dying at twice their historic rate, partly because the climate is warmer and dryer. The giant sequoias grow much more slowly than conifers over many hundreds of years so changes have been tougher to recognize, though researchers suspect seedlings already may be having a harder time taking root.

"That's always the million-dollar question," said Stephenson, director of USGS's Sierra Nevada Global Change Research Program. "We just don't have a big enough sample size to know what's going on with the giant sequoias, whereas we monitor thousands of pines and firs and have much more confidence."

So far, the dozens of changes researchers have noted, in everything from earlier songbird fledging dates to greater wildfire intensity, may point to a warming climate. But it's far from understood whether that would mean doom or adaptation for California's ecological heart.

"I don't want to say that because we're seeing one thing, that's how it will play out," said Rob Klinger who is studying alpine mammals for the USGS's Western Ecological Research Center. "The endgame of our study is determining whether there will be uniform change or will it be patchwork. If you look at evolutionary time scales, species have gone through these changes before, and they handle it."

As part of a Ph.D. project at the University of California, Merced, Kaitlin Lubetkin for five summers has hiked the backcountry taking inventory of 350 subalpine meadows formed when glaciers retreated eons ago. The marshy ground acts as a reservoir that eases flooding after snow melts, and the stored water feeds streams during dry months and sustains wildlife such as the endangered willow flycatcher songbird and the Yosemite toad, which is being considered for threatened species status.

Over the past decade of warmer, drier conditions, however, pine trees have begun to take root, acting like straws to pull the moisture out of the meadows, Klinger and Lubetkin have observed.

"Pretty much right up to the tree line you're getting encroachment in every meadow," said Lubetkin.

In September, Hassan Basagic of the Glaciers of the American West Project will be hiking to 12,000 feet (3,657 meters) elevation to measure the Lyell Glacier in Yosemite National Park and monitor the changes he first began observing in the early 2000s. Scientists from Yosemite National Park and the University of Colorado recently noted that the glacier is no longer moving—and is melting—by using measurements they've made over the past four years, as well as some of Basagic's earlier work.

Basagic's used photos from the 1930s to show that in the early 2000s the rate at which the Sierra's glaciers were receding picked up.

"A lot of people call glaciers the 'canary in the coal mine.' They're an indicator that the alpine climate is changing," said Basagic, who monitors glacial changes for Portland State University research projects. "With that change, other things will change, like the plants and animals that depend on certain climatic conditions."

Already the American pika, a cold-loving rodent, is moving to higher elevations, and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service report says, "Climate change is a potential threat to the long-term survival."

The USGS's Klinger, however, said pikas might be more resilient than the wildlife service predicts. "It doesn't hibernate and it has dealt with expanding and contracting snow packs and changing temperatures—and yet it persists," Klinger said.

If the trends continue, some species are expected to adapt by finding more hospitable environments, scientists say. One potential place is Devil's Postpile National Monument in the eastern Sierra, where 40 data collection devices are showing that temperature inversions caused by atmospheric pressure are filling the region of steep canyons with colder air.

Scientists are studying whether other areas with similar features might serve as refuges for some species. They're looking at establishing seed banks in the 800-acre (324-hectare) park where several climatic regions overlap and more than 400 plants, 100 birds and 35 animals coexist.

"We have an incredible living laboratory to understand what's happening with this cold air pool," said monument Superintendent Deanna Dulen. "We're really trying to get a good baseline of knowledge so we can look at the changes over time. We have the potential to be a refuge, but also to be a place of increased vulnerability. There's so much to learn."

Explore further: Is Hawaii prepared for the impacts of climate change?

3.8 /5 (13 votes)
add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Upon further review, giant sequoia tops a neighbor

Dec 03, 2012

Deep in the Sierra Nevada, the famous General Grant giant sequoia tree is suffering its loss of stature in silence. What once was the world's No. 2 biggest tree has been supplanted thanks to the most comprehensive ...

Rare alpine insect may disappear with glaciers

Apr 05, 2011

Loss of glaciers and snowpack due to climate warming in alpine regions is putting pressure on a rare aquatic insect, the meltwater stonefly, according to a study recently released in Climatic Change Letters.

Mountain meadows dwindling in the Pacific Northwest

Nov 02, 2012

(Phys.org)—Some high mountain meadows in the Pacific Northwest are declining rapidly due to climate change, a study suggests, as reduced snowpacks, longer growing seasons and other factors allow trees to ...

Recommended for you

Is Hawaii prepared for the impacts of climate change?

16 minutes ago

The Hawaiian Islands represent a wide diversity of ecosystems and environments, including areas of breathtaking natural beauty as well as densely populated coastal cities. These unique environments are already ...

Water in the Netherlands–past, present, and future

5 hours ago

The storm in the Netherlands began on a Saturday afternoon in February 1953. Ria Geluk, who was 6 years old, told me that it peaked during the night when nationwide communications were on their nightly pause. ...

User comments : 126

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 29, 2013
During the last warm, dry period 4,000 to 10,000 years ago

Bloody natives and their gas guzzling, CO2 polluting SUVs...no...wait..er.. horses...er..
Don_Norris
4.3 / 5 (17) Jun 30, 2013
Bloody climate change denierbots with their instant non-contributions
Neinsense99
3.7 / 5 (15) Jun 30, 2013
During the last warm, dry period 4,000 to 10,000 years ago

Bloody natives and their gas guzzling, CO2 polluting SUVs...no...wait..er.. horses...er..

Sorry, no horses then, Encyclopedic One.
Neinsense99
3.6 / 5 (14) Jun 30, 2013
Bloody climate change denierbots with their instant non-contributions

@Don_Norris probably wants to do a Chuck_Norris on those denierbots...
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (19) Jun 30, 2013
During the last warm, dry period 4,000 to 10,000 years ago

Bloody natives and their gas guzzling, CO2 polluting SUVs...no...wait..er.. horses...er..

Bloody idiots like you?
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2013
This article just serves to demonstrate how low the AGWites will go to lie about "climate change." Just look at the two pictures of Lyell Glacier. The first is from August 1903, the second from a month later in the melt season of 2004. Why didn't they use a more timely and recent comparison? I'll tell you why. Because you can't tell the difference between August 1903 and August 2012!

http://randyswayp...ana.html

The Sierra is doing just fine, as are the giant Sequoia. And, they're even working to solve the forest fire suppression problems which cause the overgrowth of smaller conifers.

http://www.nps.go...arch.htm

Lies, lies, and more lies, and yet AGWites puzzle over why anyone would choose not to believe them!

Sinister1811
3.7 / 5 (18) Jun 30, 2013
Have a look at the images on the NASA website then, and tell me if you notice any difference.

http://climate.na...ka14.jpg
arq
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 30, 2013
@antigoracle,

That warm periods occured over centuries and millenia. Now its happening over decades due to us.

arq
4.1 / 5 (14) Jun 30, 2013
Putting it another way......Cancer existed even before cigarettes. That doesnt mean cigarettes dont cause cancer.
Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2013
Putting it another way......Cancer existed even before cigarettes. That doesnt mean cigarettes dont cause cancer.

You can put it another way and another way and another and... but it won't get through the neutronium plating surrounding the echo chamber that is a denialists head. They're proud of it, too.
Shootist
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 30, 2013
Any 500 year old dairy farms in Greenland yet?
Any 500 year old grape vineyards in Scotland yet?

No.

Nothing but smoke and mirrors here, go watch Penn and Teller, or read some Freeman Dyson.
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (17) Jun 30, 2013
Have a look at the images on the NASA website then, and tell me if you notice any difference.
More lies and deliberate fabrications. There aren't any images of Lyell glacier in your link. And the Alaskan glacier you have it open to, first shows an image simply dated 1940 (could be any month!) and the other is from August 2005 late in the melt season. Why 2005? Why August? When was the 1940 picture taken?

Seriously, do better.

djr
3.9 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2013
Any 500 year old dairy farms in Greenland yet?
Any 500 year old grape vineyards in Scotland yet?

Not sure - let's look in the Domesday book - that will help us decide if there is really any global warming or not. Of course we could look to scientific data - you know like proxy data and stuff - but why ruin a good tale with details?
Neinsense99
3.3 / 5 (12) Jun 30, 2013
Have a look at the images on the NASA website then, and tell me if you notice any difference.
More lies and deliberate fabrications. There aren't any images of Lyell glacier in your link. And the Alaskan glacier you have it open to, first shows an image simply dated 1940 (could be any month!) and the other is from August 2005 late in the melt season. Why 2005? Why August? When was the 1940 picture taken?

Seriously, do better.


Glacier there, not there. That won't vary with season that much. Good try at nitpicking while ignoring the elephant though. You also don't know it wasn't taken at the same of year, which would be the obvious best choice for comparison.
deepsand
3.3 / 5 (16) Jun 30, 2013
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
http://blogs.kqed...-moment/

http://www.outsid...ved.html

http://www.sfgate...0789.php

http://www.nps.go...cier.htm

http://yosemitebl...stopped/
These were actually remarkably good links. I didn't know you had it in you. Do more of this.

Anyway, as described in the articles, measurements of Lyell glacier's movement are extremely sporadic. We simply have no record as to when it stopped moving, or even if the previously measured movement was typical. Ergo, claiming it's lack of movement is a sign of global warming is quite a stretch (to say the least).

djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013
"Ergo, claiming it's lack of movement is a sign of global warming is quite a stretch (to say the least)."

A stretch that makes sense to those studying the glaciers.

"the fact that both glaciers are shrinking - causing the Lyell Glacier to cease movement -highlights the impact that a changing climate is having in Yosemite National Park."

From: http://www.nps.go...cier.htm

And putting it in a wider perspective - from the same article - "This work contributes to the growing evidence of ice loss worldwide."

But you will continue with your contortions in order to validate your wold view - that there is some global conspiracy of "agwites" - (your term). Who has the problem?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
But you will continue with your contortions in order to validate your wold view - that there is some global conspiracy of "agwites" - (your term). Who has the problem?
So any icesheet that isn't moving these past few years, and whose previous movement hasn't even been verified in 80+ years, is proof of AGW?

Did you read this part:

""In Muir's time, the Sierra's glaciers were near their maximum extent from the so-called Little Ice Age glaciation, a period of cooling and glacial advance that began around 700 years ago."

So, are you insisting AGW has caused the end of the little ice age?

The fact is, there is insufficient history here to make a characterization.

continued....

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
...continuance:

And as John Muir himself wrote so eloquently:

"When the depth of the South Lyell Glacier diminished to about 500 feet, it became torpid, on account of the retardation caused by the roughness and crookedness of its channel. But though it henceforth made no farther advance of its whole length, it possessed feeble vitality-in small sections, of exceptional slope or depth, maintaining a squirming and swedging motion, while it lay dying like a wounded serpent." - John Muir

So even he recognized it was dying, in 1872!

Obviously, this glacier has been receding far longer than AGW can account for, unless, is it now your claim that AGW has been causing significant ice retreat since before 1872?

djr
4.7 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013
So any icesheet that isn't moving these past few years, and whose previous movement hasn't even been verified in 80+ years, is proof of AGW?

Taken as a isolated situation - no of course not. But - as indicated by the authors of this report - "This work contributes to the growing evidence of ice loss worldwide."

So when placed in the wider context of shrinking ice sheets, warming oceans, rising oceans, etc. etc. there is a pretty good case for believing that our climate is warming. Scientists who have spent their life studying this climate - conclude that the driver of this warming is greenhouse gases. As we keep repeating to folks like yourself - if you disagree with these scientists - you better have good explanation for what is causing this warming - I anticipate crickets chirping.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
So any icesheet that isn't moving these past few years, and whose previous movement hasn't even been verified in 80+ years, is proof of AGW?

Taken as a isolated situation - no of course not. But - as indicated by the authors of this report - "This work contributes to the growing evidence of ice loss worldwide."

So when placed in the wider context of shrinking ice sheets, warming oceans, rising oceans, etc. etc.
So first you admit the evidence isn't sufficient to arrive to the conclusion ...then state that because the author says so, it's now all of a sudden a valid conclusion? Really?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
there is a pretty good case for believing that our climate is warming.
What warming?

Scientists who have spent their life studying this climate - conclude that the driver of this warming is greenhouse gases. As we keep repeating to folks like yourself - if you disagree with these scientists - you better have good explanation for what is causing this warming - I anticipate crickets chirping.
So it's your contention that all global temperature fluctuations must be anthropogenic?

Supposing CO2 is the cause, why hasn't it continued to warm these past 12+ years?

djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013
"What warming?"

Do you have no memory? On a recent thread - you used exactly the same phrase - and then later denied that you had questioned the existence of warming.

How many times do we have to go around the same issues? - and then you go right ahead and raise them again - is it just a big game for you?

Again - for the sake of Uba - who clearly has alzheimer's. - Even though the surface temperatures are currently showing a plateau, many other indicators continue to show that the system is warming. We are talking about glacier retreat, ice sheet shrinkage, ocean temperature increase, ocean level rise, etc.

"So it's your contention that all global temperature fluctuations must be anthropogenic?"

No - that is a stupid question - we know about milankovich cycles, solar radiation, vulcanization, and aerosols etc. What is important - is identifying the cause of the current warming trend. Like I said - crickets chirping.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2013
"How many times do we have to go around the same issues? - and then you go right ahead and raise them again - is it just a big game for you?" - dir

UbVonTard is a congenital liar. He is here to lie.

That is his purpose here.

His purpose is deceit.
His purpose is deception.
His purpose is dishonesty.
His purpose is immorality.

All in the name of protecting his Conservative world view.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013
"What warming?"

Do you have no memory? On a recent thread - you used exactly the same phrase - and then later denied that you had questioned the existence of warming.
And as there, you're dishonestly trying to change the context, after the fact.

You stated, "there is a pretty good case for believing that our climate is warming" (present tense). So in context, "What warming?' is correct, as presently, warming has stalled out for 12+ years.

How many times do we have to go around the same issues? - and then you go right ahead and raise them again - is it just a big game for you?
I guess as many times as you dishonestly raise them again.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
Again - for the sake of Uba - who clearly has alzheimer's. - Even though the surface temperatures are currently showing a plateau, many other indicators continue to show that the system is warming. We are talking about glacier retreat, ice sheet shrinkage, ocean temperature increase, ocean level rise, etc.
None of these prove warming. Only temperature increases can prove warming. At most, these are regional weather/climatic effects, except for the sea level thing, which has generally been rising steadily since the last ice age (no AGW signal).

"So it's your contention that all global temperature fluctuations must be anthropogenic?"

No - that is a stupid question - we know about milankovich cycles, solar radiation, vulcanization, and aerosols etc. What is important - is identifying the cause of the current warming trend. Like I said - crickets chirping.
What "current" trend?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013
Uba is a congenital liar. He is here to lie.

That is his purpose here.

His purpose is deceit.
His purpose is deception.
His purpose is dishonesty.
His purpose is immorality.

All in the name of protecting his Conservative world view.
Reported.

Vendispambot has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop it.

Neinsense99
3.5 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
Uba is a congenital liar. He is here to lie.

That is his purpose here.

His purpose is deceit.
His purpose is deception.
His purpose is dishonesty.
His purpose is immorality.

All in the name of protecting his Conservative world view.
Reported.

Vendispambot has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop it.


Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'

http://phys.org/n...l#ajTabs
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'

http://phys.org/n...l#ajTabs
Reported.

Neinsense99 also has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop him.

djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013
UBA: "Only temperature increases can prove warming."

I disagree with you. I think that when the overall energy of a system increases - we can appropriately use the term warming. Do you understand phase change? When I have water at 100 degrees C, and I HEAT that water - it turns to steam - and even though the temperature remains the same - the system has absorbed energy.

However - if you want to insist that the only measure of global warming is temperature increase - would you take a look at this series of graphs. http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/

So there you see a 50 year record of global ocean temperatures - and they go up, up, up. So - I fully understand that it is you who is dishonest. I have always been very careful to stipulate that I understand that it is the surface temperatures that are on a plateau. I think you are playing a big childish game - but it is always possible that you are really that ignorant.
deepsand
3.9 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
Uba is a congenital liar. He is here to lie.

That is his purpose here.

His purpose is deceit.
His purpose is deception.
His purpose is dishonesty.
His purpose is immorality.

All in the name of protecting his Conservative world view.
Reported.

Vendispambot has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop it.

ROTFLMAO.

This from an inveterate sophist? :rolleyes:
JohnGee
3.8 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
Reported.

Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'
'Fossil fuel companies have been funding smear campaigns that raise doubts about climate change, writes John Sauven in the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine.

Environmental campaigner Sauven argues: "Some of the characters involved have previously worked to deny the reality of the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain and the link between tobacco and lung cancer. And the tactics they are applying are largely the same as those they used in the tobacco wars. Doubt is still their product."'

Read more at: http://phys.org/n...html#jCp
deepsand
3.8 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'

http://phys.org/n...l#ajTabs
Reported.

Neinsense99 also has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop him.

Reported for lacking the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and
having all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
UBA: "Only temperature increases can prove warming."

I disagree with you. I think that when the overall energy of a system increases - we can appropriately use the term warming. Do you understand phase change? When I have water at 100 degrees C, and I HEAT that water - it turns to steam - and even though the temperature remains the same - the system has absorbed energy.
Idiot. The temperature of the remaining water in the pot might remain at 100'C, but the temperature of the entire system (water+steam) has risen.

However - if you want to insist that the only measure of global warming is temperature increase - would you take a look at this series of graphs. http://www.nodc.n...CONTENT/
Idiot, as I stated above, the sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. We've discussed this before. It has nothing to do with AGW.

VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2013
UbVonTard just can't help flaunting his grand scientific ignorance.

"Only temperature increases can prove warming."

In Public School, Grade 6 students (11 year olds) learn that water (and other materials) makes a phase transition from solid to liquid, and later from liquid to gas, without a change of temperature.

This is often demonstrated in class by having the students watch a plateau in the rate of temperature increase of a container of ice and water as it warms from the ambient heating from the surrounding room.

Yes. The average 11 year old, knows more about science than UbVonTard.

No amount of his trade mark lying will alter that fact.

VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2013
"The temperature of the remaining water in the pot might remain at 100'C, but the temperature of the entire system (water+steam) has risen." - UbVonTard

Spectacular ignorance.

You should flag down an 11 year old coming home from school and have him/her explain the science to you TardieBoy.

As always, you are clueless, and those children are your intellectual superiors.

VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot, as I stated above, the sea levels have been rising since the last ice age." - UbVonTard

Actually, as the following graphic shows, it has been pretty much static since the end of the last ice age. The diagonal black line at the right of the graph shows the current rate of rise - which is many times higher than the average since the stabilization at the end of the last ice age.

http://ourchangin...rend.png

Odd isn't it how the facts never seem to correspond with what you claim to be true.

Why is that TardieBoy?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
So there you see a 50 year record of global ocean temperatures - and they go up, up, up. So - I fully understand that it is you who is dishonest. I have always been very careful to stipulate that I understand that it is the surface temperatures that are on a plateau. I think you are playing a big childish game - but it is always possible that you are really that ignorant.
When did I ever claim the deep sea hasn't warmed?

And, did you know your reference is primarily based on models, and not actual sea temperature data?

It appears you're the dishonest one.

And while we're on the subject, when are you going to apologize for your blatant lie concerning my "What warming?" statement?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
Uba is a congenital liar. He is here to lie.

That is his purpose here.

His purpose is deceit.
His purpose is deception.
His purpose is dishonesty.
His purpose is immorality.

All in the name of protecting his Conservative world view.
Reported.

Vendispambot has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop it.

ROTFLMAO.

This from an inveterate sophist? :rolleyes:

Reported.

deepspambot has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop it.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
Reported.
Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'
'Fossil fuel companies have been funding smear campaigns that raise doubts about climate change, writes John Sauven in the latest issue of Index on Censorship magazine.

Environmental campaigner Sauven argues: "Some of the characters involved have previously worked to deny the reality of the hole in the ozone layer, acid rain and the link between tobacco and lung cancer. And the tactics they are applying are largely the same as those they used in the tobacco wars. Doubt is still their product."'
Reported for being off topic.

JohnGee has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop him.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'

http://phys.org/n...l#ajTabs
Reported.

Neinsense99 also has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop him.
Reported for lacking the humour... (deepsand spewing brainless spambot blather...).
Reported for irrelevance.

deepspambot still has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop it.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
UbVonTard just can't help flaunting his grand scientific ignorance.

"Only temperature increases can prove warming."

In Public School, Grade 6 students (11 year olds) learn that water (and other materials) makes a phase transition from solid to liquid, and later from liquid to gas, without a change of temperature.

This is often demonstrated in class by having the students watch a plateau in the rate of temperature increase of a container of ice and water as it warms from the ambient heating from the surrounding room.

Yes. The average 11 year old, knows more about science than UbVonTard.

No amount of his trade mark lying will alter that fact.
Idiot spambot. That's only true if you're measuring isolated parts of the system. The whole system's temperature increases.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
"The temperature of the remaining water in the pot might remain at 100'C, but the temperature of the entire system (water+steam) has risen." - UbVonTard

Spectacular ignorance.

You should flag down an 11 year old coming home from school and have him/her explain the science to you TardieBoy.

As always, you are clueless, and those children are your intellectual superiors.
Idiot. if you're adding energy from an external source, the temperature of the entire system (all the mass) must rise.

But spambots aren't exactly known for an understanding of ...well, anything.

VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2013
"What warming?" - UbVonTard

"When did I ever claim the deep sea hasn't warmed?" - UbVonTard

UbVonTard. Caught in yet another lie.

His Conservative ideology prevents him from telling the truth.
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot spambot. That's only true if you're measuring isolated parts of the system. The whole system's temperature increases." - UbVonTard

Wrong again, my little Conservative Moron. The temperature of the system remains static while the water turns to steam.

It is a property of phase transitions that 11 year olds know, and you are clueless about.

What a shame you never graduated from grade 6.

Look at it this way, dung for brains, if the steam were hotter than the water it would cool by heating the water, thereby negating the implied reason for it's existence.

Poor Dung for Brains UbVonTard. He knows less about how the world works than an 11 year old.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot, as I stated above, the sea levels have been rising since the last ice age." - UbVonTard

Actually, as the following graphic shows, it has been pretty much static since the end of the last ice age. The diagonal black line at the right of the graph shows the current rate of rise - which is many times higher than the average since the stabilization at the end of the last ice age.
Idiot. there's orders of magnitude difference between these graphs. You can't place these together and have it make any sense. The current trend would be a single decimal point.

Here's the actual graph:

http://upload.wik...evel.png

VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot. if you're adding energy from an external source, the temperature of the entire system (all the mass) must rise." - UbVonTard

What are you doing to cure your mental disease TardieBoy?
VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot. there's orders of magnitude difference between these graphs." - UbVonTard

In fact, they are essentially identical.

Mine...

http://ourchangin...rend.png

Yours

http://upload.wik...evel.png

Can you tell us where your claimed "orders of magnitude" between the two above graphs are?

Are you practicing to be the worlds greatest fool?

You don't need to practice....
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
"What warming?" - UbVonTard

"When did I ever claim the deep sea hasn't warmed?" - UbVonTard

UbVonTard. Caught in yet another lie.

His Conservative ideology prevents him from telling the truth.
Reported.

Moderators: Please block this offending (and downright offensive) poster.

VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2013
UbVonTard. Get help. You are mentally diseased.

I am concerned that you might soon start molesting young boys at the park.

Do you have children? I am concerned for their safety and mental health.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot spambot. That's only true if you're measuring isolated parts of the system. The whole system's temperature increases." - UbVonTard

Wrong again, my little Conservative Moron. The temperature of the system remains static while the water turns to steam.

It is a property of phase transitions that 11 year olds know, and you are clueless about.

What a shame you never graduated from grade 6.

Look at it this way, dung for brains, if the steam were hotter than the water it would cool by heating the water, thereby negating the implied reason for it's existence.

Poor Dung for Brains UbVonTard. He knows less about how the world works than an 11 year old.
Maybe you think the steam in a steam engine never gets above 100'C? LOL.

Idiot. the steam works to keep the body cool, by taking away excess heat.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
"Idiot. there's orders of magnitude difference between these graphs." - UbVonTard

In fact, they are essentially identical.

Mine...

http://ourchangin...rend.png

Yours

http://upload.wik...evel.png

Can you tell us where your claimed "orders of magnitude" between the two above graphs are?

Are you practicing to be the worlds greatest fool?

You don't need to practice...
The idiot spambot has lost the context. The orders of magnitude difference are between the original graph and the inserted "diagonal black line at the right of the graph showing the current rate of rise."

But spambots have difficulty with images and context.

ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (14) Jul 07, 2013
UbVonTard. Get help. You are mentally diseased.

I am concerned that you might soon start molesting young boys at the park.

Do you have children? I am concerned for their safety and mental health.
Reported.

Moderators: Please block this offending (and downright offensive) poster.

VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2013
"Maybe you think the steam in a steam engine never gets above 100'C? LOL." - UbVonTard

The temperature of steam in a steam engine never exceeds the temperature of the boiling water that generates it. Doing so is a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.

The steam and the water are necessarily at thermal equilibrium. If the steam was hotter it would warm the water to the point where the temperatures would then be equal.

11 year olds know the science. What is your excuse for being ignorant of it?

VendicarE
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 07, 2013
"The orders of magnitude difference are between the original graph and the inserted "diagonal black line at the right of the graph showing the current rate of rise." - UbVonTard

In other words the graphic you posted and claimed was different is not different at all, but essentially identical... Contrary to your earlier claim.

What you are objecting to is the inclusion of a diagonal line showing the current measured rate of ocean level rise of 3 to 4 mm per year.

On what basis do you object to an observed rate of rise being shown on a historical plot of ocean level rise?

You seem to be upset for no more rational reason than that you have soiled your underpants.

Again....
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2013
UbVonTard. Get help. You are mentally diseased.

I am concerned that you might soon start molesting young boys at the park.

Do you have children? I am also concerned for their safety and mental health.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Jul 07, 2013
"The orders of magnitude difference are between the original graph and the inserted "diagonal black line at the right of the graph showing the current rate of rise." - UbVonTard

In other words the graphic you posted and claimed was different is not different at all, but essentially identical... Contrary to your earlier claim.

What you are objecting to is the inclusion of a diagonal line showing the current measured rate of ocean level rise of 3 to 4 mm per year.

On what basis do you object to an observed rate of rise being shown on a historical plot of ocean level rise?

You seem to be upset for no more rational reason than that you have soiled your underpants.

Again....
LOL. The spambot is still having trouble with the context. Let's see if it can make this connection:

Vendi, how much larger is a meter than a millimeter?

deepsand
3.4 / 5 (13) Jul 07, 2013
Uba is a congenital liar. He is here to lie.

That is his purpose here.

His purpose is deceit.
His purpose is deception.
His purpose is dishonesty.
His purpose is immorality.

All in the name of protecting his Conservative world view.
Reported.

Vendispambot has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop it.

ROTFLMAO.

This from an inveterate sophist? :rolleyes:

Reported.

deepspambot has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop it.

Guess that explains the continued flow of nonsense for UTuba.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 07, 2013
UbVonTard has now run away.

Pathetic, Cut and Run, Republican Coward.
djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2013
UBA: " Idiot, as I stated above, the sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. We've discussed this before. It has nothing to do with AGW."

The graphs I referenced were for ocean temperatures - not sea levels. The graphs show that the temperatures have been steadily increasing for at least the last 50 years. So - your requirement that global warming can only be measured by temperatures - is in fact met by the graphs of ocean temperatures. So you see - even though the surface temperatures are on a plateau (as they were from 1940 to 1980) - the system continues to warm. On the issue of the temperature of steam - you are wrong. At sea level - water boils at 100 degrees C, and turns to steam. It requires significant input of energy to turn the water to steam - but the steam remains at 100 degrees. The energy is used for phase change. Same thing from ice to water. Seems you do not understand some pretty basic physics.
djr
4.5 / 5 (10) Jul 07, 2013
UBA: "Idiot. the steam works to keep the body cool, by taking away excess heat."

Evaporation can occur at much lower temperatures than boiling. Water vapor is produced - it is not technically steam. The steam you see coming out of a kettle is the water droplets condensing - as they cool down a little. You should be careful who you call idiot - especially if you are then going to cry baby about other people being rude to you. Here is a cute video on the issue of phase change.

http://education-...ing.html
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013
The graphs I referenced were for ocean temperatures - not sea levels. The graphs show that the temperatures have been steadily increasing for at least the last 50 years. So - your requirement that global warming can only be measured by temperatures - is in fact met by the graphs of ocean temperatures.
Hello-o-o. Did you not read the part about these graphs being based on models, and not actual historical temperatures?

So you see - even though the surface temperatures are on a plateau (as they were from 1940 to 1980) - the system continues to warm.
Even if the deep see is warming, how is it anthropogenic?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013
On the issue of the temperature of steam - you are wrong. At sea level - water boils at 100 degrees C, and turns to steam. It requires significant input of energy to turn the water to steam - but the steam remains at 100 degrees. The energy is used for phase change. Same thing from ice to water. Seems you do not understand some pretty basic physics.
The system isn't that simple. The thermal energy to do this is supposedly coming from an external source (the sun). It could not possibly heat only the ice, but leave everything else alone.

Maybe you think the burner on your stove heats only the water in the pot?

So what about land temperatures? If this is happening, why aren't they increasing? And why isn't the ocean surface warming?

Seriously, how can you miss this?

ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013
Evaporation can occur at much lower temperatures than boiling. Water vapor is produced - it is not technically steam. The steam you see coming out of a kettle is the water droplets condensing - as they cool down a little.
Right. The material dosen't have to maintain a specific temperature to undergo a phase transition. And, the temperature of the air above the water can be either cooler or warmer than the water surface, for this to occur.

You should be careful who you call idiot - especially if you are then going to cry baby about other people being rude to you.
You are right. I apologize.

Here is a cute video on the issue of phase change.
That was a cute video. Thanks.

djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013
Hello-o-o. Did you not read the part about these graphs being based on models, and not actual historical temperatures?

Hello - yes I did - and I read your response that said - " Idiot, as I stated above, the sea levels have been rising since the last ice age. "

So I understandably interpreted that to mean that you had misunderstood the graphs to be talking about sea levels - not sea temperatures. If that is not the case - then you should have elaborated on your point.

So do you have actual data that shows the ocean is not warming? I can show you data (not models) that says the oceans are warming.

http://www.scienc...5345.htm
http://www.scienc...0558.htm
http://thinkprogr...warming/

djr
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 07, 2013
Seriously, how can you miss this?

Well - I am not a climate scientist studying the system - but the scientists who are studying the system are of course aware of all of these factors. As previously pointed out - from 1940 to 1980 - the surface temps plateaud - but global warming had not stopped - the system is complex - and the energy was still being absorbed - and the energy could be going into melting the ice, or warming the oceans.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2013
So do you have actual data that shows the ocean is not warming? I can show you data (not models) that says the oceans are warming.

http://www.scienc...5345.htm
This one is about long term trends, since the 1870's, which I've readily acknowledged show warming, but like with the global record, show cooling for the last 12+ years:

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

http://www.scienc...0558.htm
This one is about regional coastal temperature gradients which they've claimed have changed. It's not about global temperatures

http://thinkprogr...warming/
This one is about ocean warming from 10 - 1500m. It uses ARGO data which is a system that hasn't even been in place long enough to draw conclusions.

And the article readily admits possible systematic errors.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Jul 08, 2013
Seriously, how can you miss this?
Well - I am not a climate scientist studying the system - but the scientists who are studying the system are of course aware of all of these factors
All you're saying is, you're taking it on faith. I might as well be arguing religion with a fundamentalist.

In the future, why don't we stick to concepts you can understand and discuss intelligently?

djr
4.6 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2013
"In the future, why don't we stick to concepts you can understand and discuss intelligently?"

If you are going to be a cry baby about people being rude to you - you really should not default to being rude to others.

Yes - there is a sense in which we take things on faith. For example - when I go to the doctor with an infection, and the doctor recommends a particular antibiotic - I accept the recommendation. I did not do the research, or read all the studies on that medication myself. Our world is to complex for us not to defer to experts. I see the climate in the same way. Clearly this is fundamental difference between you and me. If tens of thousands of climate scientists are studying the system - and they conclude that the system is warming - I accept their conclusion. Look at how you take each article that I have referenced - and just add your personal opinion of how they are wrong. Then you say something as glib as 'which I've readily acknowledged show warming" cont.
djr
4.5 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2013
So you readily acknowledge there is long term warming. The ARGO data shows that the warming continues. You have provided no counter data - just a glib statement that ARGO has not been in place long enough to draw conclusions. Each time a piece of data is presented - you are able to counter the conclusions of the authors - with your own special analysis. Here is a statement from one of the articles "In some areas, the authors detected changes in temperature of +/-2.5 degrees Celsius, which is 3 times higher than the global average." So - researchers who are studying our oceans - conclude that global average temps are increasing - and some local areas show increases that are significantly higher than the global averages" But you can dismiss this work because "it is just regional." So no matter what the evidence - you will refute the experts - and then insult me - because I am willing to admit my limitations and accept the conclusions of the Phd folks who study a subject cont.
djr
4.5 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2013
that is so complex - thousands of Phd's argue about the data in peer reviewed articles by the thousand. And the conclusion of those Phd's is that the system is warming. And all the data shows that the ice sheets are melting, the glaciers are melting, the oceans are warming, the ocean ph is changing, the oceans are rising etc. etc. And each time an article appears on physorg - UBA pops up yet again and refutes the experts - because surface temps have been on a plateau for 12 years - so there can be no warming. In a discussion about boiling water - you showed that you do not understand a concept as simple as phase change - but you know better than thousands of phd's pouring over mountains of research. Final ? - If you acknowledge long term warming - and note that during that warming period - there have been times the surface temps plateaud - but the warming continued - why would you not suspect the current surface temp plateau is consistent with continued warming?
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2013
UbvonTard steps in his own dung once again.

"This one is about ocean warming from 10 - 1500m. It uses ARGO data which is a system that hasn't even been in place long enough to draw conclusions." - UbVonTard

UbVonTard insists that the 12 year time span he uses to judge climate change is sufficiently long to show that the world is not warming, but claims above that the argo system, which has been deployed for the last 13 years hasn't been in place long enough to draw conclusions.

So to him, 12 years is long enough if it supports his Liedeology, but 13 years IS NOT long enough if it doesn't.

What a MORON.
VendicarE
4.5 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2013
"The system isn't that simple. The thermal energy to do this is supposedly coming from an external source (the sun). It could not possibly heat only the ice, but leave everything else alone." - UbVonTard

No one is suggesting it does. You are ignoring the vertical mixing of ocean water which will tend to keep surface waters cool as deeper layers warm.

Idiot.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Jul 09, 2013
In the future, why don't we stick to concepts you can understand and discuss intelligently?
If you are going to be a cry baby about people being rude to you - you really should not default to being rude to others.
How is it rude to confirm your own statements about lacking the necessary understanding to converse on the subject, and therefore extend an invitation to talk about something in which you are conversant?

And as far as being rude is concerned, when are you going to apologize for deliberately misinterpreting my "What Warming?" comment?

Yes - there is a sense in which we take things on faith. For example - when I go to the doctor with an infection, and the doctor recommends a particular antibiotic - I accept the recommendation. I did not do the research, or read all the studies on that medication myself.
So are you on medical websites discussing this very same issue, and equally as vehemently putting down any opinion you don't agree with?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Jul 09, 2013
Look at how you take each article that I have referenced - and just add your personal opinion of how they are wrong.
This is a lie. I didn't claim any of them were "wrong," per se. I only gave brief synopses to show that I read them, and show they were poor supporting evidence for your argument.

Each time a piece of data is presented - you are able to counter the conclusions of the authors - with your own special analysis.
If you're using inappropriate references to support your argument, how is that my fault?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Jul 09, 2013
you showed that you do not understand a concept as simple as phase change
I inadvertently used "temperature" and "heat" where I should have used "thermal energy." Big whoop.

and some local areas show increases that are significantly higher than the global averages
More proof you only see what you want to see. Why didn't you mention the part about cooling in some regions too? Biased much?

Just for balance (from the actual paper):

"Almost the entire South-American Pacific gradient (6–47°S), however, has considerably cooled over the study period (−0.3 to −1.7°C, 31 years),"

"and significant mid-latitude cooling (Florida to Cape Hatteras 26–35°N, −0.5 to −2.2°C, 31 years)."

"Most cells of the North-American Pacific gradient (NAmPac) showed weak cooling trends..."

"Significant cooling trends, however, were observed at the gradients high latitude end (31–34°S, i.e., south-western tip of Africa"

http://www.scienc...0558.htm

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (12) Jul 09, 2013
all the data shows that the ice sheets are melting, the glaciers are melting, the oceans are warming, the ocean ph is changing, the oceans are rising etc. etc. And each time an article appears on physorg - UBA pops up yet again and refutes the experts - because surface temps have been on a plateau for 12 years - so there can be no warming.
Again, you're confusing various regionsal weather/climate conditions with over all warming.

If you acknowledge long term warming - and note that during that warming period - there have been times the surface temps plateaud - but the warming continued - why would you not suspect the current surface temp plateau is consistent with continued warming?
What makes you so sure it is consistent with continued warming?

I've often stated warming may, or may not, resume. There's no telling, at the moment.

Haven't we previously agreed to wait and see?

djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2013
I am away from home for a week - and only have access to iphone - so have to be brief - and cannot copy and paste.

Quick points - i never misrepresented your nonsense about 'what warming'. You questioned the existence of warming - and then denied doing it.

I am comfortable that it is consistent with warming because of the obvious patterns. All the indicators are telling us that the system is continuing to absorb energy.

I am not confusing regoinal events with overall warming. If the system has millions of parts - some going in one direction - some in another - it is appropriate to try to get a sense of the general vector the aggregate. The authors of that study did that for us. They understood the regoinal details of the situation - discussed them - and were comfortable talking about overall warming.
djr
4.6 / 5 (9) Jul 09, 2013
Finally - you say more proof that i only see what i want to see. I agree that i exhibit a degree of confirmation bias. When you have one group arguing in support of a particular issue - and another against it - you see confirmation bias all the way round. Here ix the difference. I do not set myself up as the authority on the issue- and then argue with thousands of phd scientists who spend their lives studying a subject - to declare that they are all wrong. With my limited knowledge of the topic - limited being a relative term - i certainly try to evaluate the evidence presented - and to think critically - but in the end - i am willing to defer to their greater knowledge. Same reason i go to the doctor. It is clear to me that the far grezter confirmation bias is exhibited by the anti sciencers like urself - who have formed a pre determined conclusion - and now argue AGAINST the overwhelming consensus of science - that the system is not warming.
deepsand
3.6 / 5 (12) Jul 09, 2013
I might as well be arguing religion with a fundamentalist.

Perhaps because you act like one.

In the future, why don't we stick to concepts you can understand and discuss intelligently?

Best to first heed your own advice.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 2013
UbVonTard just can't help flaunting his grand scientific ignorance.

"Only temperature increases can prove warming."

In Public School, Grade 6 students (11 year olds) learn that water (and other materials) makes a phase transition from solid to liquid, and later from liquid to gas, without a change of temperature.

This is often demonstrated in class by having the students watch a plateau in the rate of temperature increase of a container of ice and water as it warms from the ambient heating from the surrounding room.
Idiot. that's only true if the heat source is conductive. We're talking about radiative heating (from above).

Yes. The average 11 year old, knows more about science than UbVonTard.

No amount of his trade mark lying will alter that fact.
Poor Vendispambot hasn't the intelligence of a squirrel.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 2013
"The temperature of the remaining water in the pot might remain at 100'C, but the temperature of the entire system (water+steam) has risen." - UbVonTard

Spectacular ignorance.
Yes, spectacular ignorance on your part. Steam/water vapor away from the water can be heated well beyond the temperature of the water.

You should flag down an 11 year old coming home from school and have him/her explain the science to you TardieBoy.

As always, you are clueless, and those children are your intellectual superiors.
LOL. The spambot describes itself.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 2013
Uba. Get help. You are mentally diseased.
This appears to be your problem.

I am concerned that you might soon start molesting young boys at the park.
This statement alone demonstrates the accuracy of mine, above. You're a perverted sicko and anyone not reporting your comments should be ashamed of themselves. Phys.org should be ashamed for not permanently barring you, your IP address, and policing the system against Vendi sockpuppets.

Do you have children? I am also concerned for their safety and mental health.
My children are none of you business, sicko pervert.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 2013
Quick points - i never misrepresented your nonsense about 'what warming'. You questioned the existence of warming - and then denied doing it.
This is a lie. I clearly pointed out how you did so. To continue denying your prevarication only serves to dishonor you.

I am comfortable that it is consistent with warming because of the obvious patterns. All the indicators are telling us that the system is continuing to absorb energy.
This is a lie. ..unless you would claim temperature is distinctly not a measure of absorbed energy?

I am not confusing regoinal events with overall warming. If the system has millions of parts - some going in one direction - some in another - it is appropriate to try to get a sense of the general vector the aggregate. The authors of that study did that for us. They understood the regoinal details of the situation - discussed them - and were comfortable talking about overall warming.
Just because you buy the B.S. doesn't make it true.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (11) Jul 20, 2013
Finally - you say more proof that i only see what i want to see. I agree that i exhibit a degree of confirmation bias.
So you admit to being intentionally biased, and therefore a liar.

It is clear to me that the far grezter confirmation bias is exhibited by the anti sciencers like urself - who have formed a pre determined conclusion - and now argue AGAINST the overwhelming consensus of science - that the system is not warming.
Is this a trick? Are you now claiming, the overwhelming consensus of science is,"the system is not warming." LOL

By even the greeny definition, global warming is a matter of increasing temperature. That you refuse to acknowledge this, simply boggles me.

http://science.yo...-warming

Anyway, you've clearly stated your intent is to continue believing only what you want to believe, and see only what you want to see. As I find this approach wholly unreasonable, I see no point in reasoning with you further.

djr
4.4 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2013
Anyway, you've clearly stated your intent is to continue believing only what you want to believe, and see only what you want to see. As I find this approach wholly unreasonable, I see no point in reasoning with you further.

Good - perhaps the comments section of Physorg will become a little more informed if you stop trying to use your poor reasoning skills.

"So you admit to being intentionally biased, and therefore a liar."

No - I admit to being a human. The consensus of science tells us that the system is warming. You misunderstood my sentence above - but admittedly it was a little confusing. However - you know my position - and just choose to be a jerk with that kind nonsense. You also are bias - far more so than I. You have a predetermined position - a position that conflicts with the preponderance of evidence, and also the consensus of science. You attack every article on Physorg - with your predetermined position. It is absolutely you who uses the far greater level cont
djr
4.4 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2013
of confirmation bias. Let me demonstrate - in response to my claim that all indicators are telling us that the system is warming. You state - This is a lie. ..unless you would claim temperature is distinctly not a measure of absorbed energy?

But every indicator does tell us the system is warming - including temperature. Here is the 100 year temperature record. . - http://www.woodfo.../to:2013

Clearly - if you are scientific - and look at the whole picture - the temperature is going up - yes it is somewhat step wise - and currently on a plateau - but going up. But you choose to cherry pick - ignoring the ocean temps, the glacier melts, the ice sheet melts, the ocean level rise - all indicators of warming - to then call me a liar. Who demonstrates the most confirmation bias? Please follow through on your promise - and stop trying to reason with me.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 20, 2013
You also are bias - far more so than I. You have a predetermined position
This is another lie. As we've discussed, I've only observed that global warming, by definition, has been on hiatus. I've clearly also stated warming could resume, or not, therefore showing no bias.

a position that conflicts with the preponderance of evidence, and also the consensus of science.
By definition, anyone claiming continued warming is in conflict with the science (unless you would claim global temperature monitoring is not science).

You attack every article on Physorg - with your predetermined position.
I only attack the poor quality of the science, as presented. It's not about my position.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 20, 2013
in response to my claim that all indicators are telling us that the system is warming. You state - This is a lie. ..unless you would claim temperature is distinctly not a measure of absorbed energy?

But every indicator does tell us the system is warming - including temperature. Here is the 100 year temperature record.
Here, you presented a lie of obfuscation. You're deliberately burying the current trend in overwhelming data.

Clearly - if you are scientific - and look at the whole picture - the temperature is going up - yes it is somewhat step wise - and currently on a plateau - but going up. But you choose to cherry pick.
Another lie. I never claimed it hasn't warmed in the past.

ignoring the ocean temps,
They're included in the global temperature data.

the glacier melts, the ice sheet melts, the ocean level rise - all indicators of warming
And you ignore the growing glaciers, advancing ice, and the stability of the ocean levels.

cont....
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 20, 2013
to then call me a liar.
Because you are.

Who demonstrates the most confirmation bias?
Obviously, you do.

Please follow through on your promise - and stop trying to reason with me.
Oh, I'm not reasoning with you. I'm simply calling you a liar.

djr = bold-faced liar.

djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2013
Damn - I was hoping you would keep your word - too much to ask I guess.

You are wrong when you claim that ocean temps are included in the global temperature data. Hadcrut4 is " a monthly-mean global surface temperature analysis" As is Gistemp, NCDC, and GHCN. So your whole premise is wrong.

"And you ignore the growing glaciers, advancing ice, and the stability of the ocean levels."

Your science is totally wrong here. The glacier mass is decreasing globally - some high level glaciers are increasing - but again - the scientist is able to look at the big picture - and understand that the majority (I think the # is around 80%) of glaciers are retreating. Same story with the ice sheets. Ocean levels are increasing. So - see how you are demonstrating a stupid level of confirmation bias - by trying to cherry pick information - and argue against the preponderance of evidence, and scientific consensus.

I have never lied on this board - I acknowledge some confirmation bias (cont)
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2013
Meaning that I select information to support my position - as do you. Big difference being that my confirmation bias is supported by the preponderance of evidence, and scientific consensus. Let me give an analogy. Many argue the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old. The scientific consensus, and the preponderance of evidence says otherwise. You are like the young earth creationists - screaming against reality. Your arguments don't hold any water - so you call people liars.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 20, 2013
Damn - I was hoping you would keep your word - too much to ask I guess.
You obviously know nothing about honesty.

You are wrong when you claim that ocean temps are included in the global temperature data. Hadcrut4 is " a monthly-mean global surface temperature analysis" As is Gistemp, NCDC, and GHCN. So your whole premise is wrong.
Idiot/liar. HadCRUT3, HadCRUT4, GISStemp, and NCDC include marine temperatures.

"COMBINED LAND/MARINE
HadCRUT3 - Gridded monthly temperatures
HadCRUT4 - Gridded monthly temperatures"

http://www.metoff.../hadobs/

"ocean data are now based on NOAA ERSST"

http://data.giss....gistemp/

"combined global land and ocean average surface temperature"

http://www.ncdc.n.../global/

The glacier mass is decreasing globally
Possibly, but it isn't definitively linked to AGW. This could simply be a natural occurence. It's happened before without AGW.

And as for determining the mass balance ...well, good luck with that.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 20, 2013
some high level glaciers are increasing
Lots of glaciers are increasing.

the scientist ...understand that the majority (I think the # is around 80%) of glaciers are retreating.
But they concentrate their studies on ones which are retreating, thereby reinforcing a bias.

Same story with the ice sheets.
The largest icesheet/s in the world are in the Antarctic, and they appear to be increasing, significantly:

"Mass Gains of the Antarctic Ice Sheet Exceed Losses"

http://ntrs.nasa....3235.pdf

Ocean levels are increasing.
Arguable, but there's certainly no accelerated signal associated with AGW.

see how you are demonstrating a stupid level of confirmation bias - by trying to cherry pick information - and argue against the preponderance of evidence, and scientific consensus.
This appears to be your shtick.

I have never lied on this board
Obviously, yet another lie. Is lying all you have?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 20, 2013
I acknowledge some confirmation bias Meaning that I select information to support my position
Which is nothing more than a fancy way to say you lie to achieve your desired end.

as do you.
I simply work to present balanced science. In order to balance out the heavily biased articles and comments, a strong counterbalance is often required.

Big difference being that my confirmation bias is supported by the preponderance of evidence, and scientific consensus.
No it's not. You mean rather, it is supported by the consensus of opinion. By definition, continued global warming is not supported by the evidence of facts.

Let me give an analogy. Many argue the earth is less than 10,000 yrs old. The scientific consensus, and the preponderance of evidence says otherwise. You are like the young earth creationists - screaming against reality. Your arguments don't hold any water - so you call people liars.
Oh, please. You need but hold a single fossil.

djr = liar
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2013
"Which is nothing more than a fancy way to say you lie to achieve your desired end."

No it is not - it is saying that I am aware - that when I am in an argument - like everyone else - I tend to filter information to support my position. So do you. I have shown very clearly that you are filtering information to support your pr-selected position that warming is not happening. Warming is happening. The evidence supports the fact that warming is happening. The glaciers are melting. The ice sheets are melting. The temperatures are rising. The ocean levels are rising. All the scientists who are studying the subject are in agreement. The facts are undeniable - unless you want to filter - and do what you JUST did - you said - but some of the glaciers are growing. Correct - but that is filtering information - it is selecting that which supports your position. Nothing unusual about that - except that your position is counter to the preponderance of evidence, and the (cont).
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2013
scientific consensus. So yes - you are exhibiting extreme confirmation bias with just this statement - " By definition, continued global warming is not supported by the evidence of facts."

That is not true - the evidence supports the premise that the globe is warming. Do I have to go over it all again - show you the 100 year temperature records, the ice sheet data, the glacier data, the ocean temperature data, the ocean level data?

"I simply work to present balanced science." That is clearly false - the science is clear - the climate is warming - but you tie yourself in knots to deny it. You are delusional.
djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 20, 2013
Let me show you your confirmation bias. Here is one quote from one of many articles that I googled on glaciers.

" A survey of 160,000 mountain glaciers and ice caps in all glaciated regions of the world (1) shows that the volume of the world's glaciers isdeclining, and the rate of ice loss continues to accelerate. There has been a significant decrease in the area and volume of mountain glaciers, especially at mid- and low-latitudes."

From - http://www-das.uw...ier.html

And here is your statement. - " Lots of glaciers are increasing."

How is this not confirmation bias? Please tell us what percentage of glaciers are increasing. Please tell us the point of making that statement. Clearly you are selecting information to match your pre-selected view. If you believe that the data regarding glacier melt does not support the premise that the system is warming - where is your evidence?
Neinsense99
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'

http://phys.org/n...l#ajTabs
Reported.

Neinsense99 also has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop him.

Reported for lacking the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and
having all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.

Yeah, they'll ban me for linking to their own stories. Sure they will. A 'TARD might expect that.
BTW, today I hiked up past where a glacier used to be, but now there is just a huge assembly of boulders.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
"Which is nothing more than a fancy way to say you lie to achieve your desired end."

No it is not - it is saying that I am aware - that when I am in an argument - like everyone else - I tend to filter information to support my position. So do you. I have shown very clearly that you are filtering information to support your pr-selected position that warming is not happening.
Another lie. What's to filter? The temperatures are what they are.

The glaciers are melting. The ice sheets are melting. The temperatures are rising.
Lie, lie, and big ass lie.

The ocean levels are rising.
Only since the last ice age!

All the scientists who are studying the subject are in agreement.
Another whopper! Is this all you have?

The facts are undeniable
Then why are you denying them?

unless you want to filter
You mean lie, like you.

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
and do what you JUST did - you said - but some of the glaciers are growing.
Which is true, and a perfect counter to your, "The glaciers are melting."

Correct - but that is filtering information - it is selecting that which supports your position.
It's addressing missing and ignored information. Unlike you, I'll readily admit that glaciers are both receding AND advancing.

Nothing unusual about that - except that your position is counter to the preponderance of evidence, and the scientific consensus.
What evidence? You haven't presented any evidence. The global evidence is clear. Temperatures haven't risen in as much as 16+ years. Anyone saying otherwise, is a liar.

So yes - you are exhibiting extreme confirmation bias with just this statement - " By definition, continued global warming is not supported by the evidence of facts."
How is stating the fact of it a confirmation bias? Are you suggesting the temperatures have a confirmation bias now? Really?

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
That is not true - the evidence supports the premise that the globe is warming. Do I have to go over it all again - show you the 100 year temperature records, the ice sheet data, the glacier data, the ocean temperature data, the ocean level data?
Why don't you apply the definition and show me the temperature data for the last dozen years? Here, I'll do it:

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

Oh, looky there. Global cooling.

"I simply work to present balanced science." That is clearly false - the science is clear - the climate is warming - but you tie yourself in knots to deny it. You are delusional.
What climate is warming? How can our climate be warming, when the temperature data clearly shows otherwise?

Maybe your definition of warming is the sentimental one? Maybe you think the earth is becoming more loving?

Seriously, check a dictionary.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
Let me show you your confirmation bias. Here is one quote from one of many articles that I googled on glaciers.

" A survey of 160,000 mountain glaciers and ice caps in all glaciated regions of the world (1) shows that the volume of the world's glaciers isdeclining, and the rate of ice loss continues to accelerate. There has been a significant decrease in the area and volume of mountain glaciers, especially at mid- and low-latitudes."

From - http://www-das.uw...ier.html

And here is your statement. - " Lots of glaciers are increasing."

How is this not confirmation bias?
It looks to me like you're lying by trying to apply context that wasn't there originally.

Please tell us what percentage of glaciers are increasing. Please tell us the point of making that statement.
In the original context, I was merely reinforcing your statement; "some high level glaciers are increasing."

cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
Clearly you are selecting information to match your pre-selected view.
So switching up the context and subsequently making false accusations is your idea of honesty? Really?

Clearly you are boldly lying (and presenting false testimony) to support your pre-selected view.

If you believe that the data regarding glacier melt does not support the premise that the system is warming - where is your evidence?
In the global temperature record. Shall I post it again?

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

Looky there, 16 years of cooling.

djr = lying scumbag.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
BTW, today I hiked up past where a glacier used to be, but now there is just a huge assembly of boulders.
Big whoop. Dry glacier beds are all over the place. Boulders are strewn about willy-nilly as a result. Yosemite is a fine example of what glaciation can do.

http://www.nps.go...logy.htm

djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2013
"What climate is warming? How can our climate be warming, when the temperature data clearly shows otherwise?"

Because our climate is comprised of many pieces - not just surface temperatures. So if the oceans are warming, the ice sheets are melting, the glaciers are melting, the oceans rising, and for the last 20 years the surface temperatures are on a plateau - then we have to look at the system as a whole. Taken as a whole - the system is warming. The evidence is conclusive.

djr = lying scumbag.

Thanks. I am not sure what to do with this kind of comment. I am wrestling with understanding my world - and the people who inhabit it. It is depressing to realize that some/many/most (I am not sure which adjective applies) are really f**king ignorant. Obviously it is an exercise in futility to try having a conversation with someone in that category - and reflects badly on me if I waste my time in an exercise in futility.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
ow can our climate be warming, when the temperature data clearly shows otherwise?
Because our climate is comprised of many pieces - not just surface temperatures.
But didn't you just say you agree with the consensus? Tell me, what does the consensus say is the definition of the term, global warming?

Virtually every legitimate definition of global warming begins with, "an increase in the earth's average atmospheric temperature."

So you just arbitrarily change the definition to suit your preconceived conclusion? Since when has science worked like this?

So if the oceans are warming, the ice sheets are melting, the glaciers are melting, the oceans rising, and for the last 20 years the surface temperatures are on a plateau - then we have to look at the system as a whole. Taken as a whole - the system is warming
So melting butter on the counter means my room temperature is higher?

The evidence is conclusive.
Sure, conclusive for cooling.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
djr = lying scumbag.
Thanks. I am not sure what to do with this kind of comment. I am wrestling with understanding my world - and the people who inhabit it.
Wouldn't this be a more fruitful endeavor if you were to approach these things honestly, and with the highest integrity?

It is depressing to realize that some/many/most (I am not sure which adjective applies) are really f**king ignorant.
Indeed.

Obviously it is an exercise in futility to try having a conversation with someone in that category - and reflects badly on me if I waste my time in an exercise in futility.
So you think the ignorant should remain ignorant? How is that productive?

Why don't you get productive and educate yourself by reading some of the definitions for global warming? What is the consensus definition?

djr
4.5 / 5 (8) Jul 21, 2013
So you think the ignorant should remain ignorant? How is that productive?

No - but I think that at a certain point - it becomes obvious that conversation is an exercise in futility. To be productive - conversation requires certain agreements. When those agreements are not in place - it is better to recognize that the other person is just being deliberately obnoxious, and is in fact not interested in learning - but interested in scoring points or something like that. You communicated your intent when you called me a scumbag. Being called names does not hurt my feelings at all - but I felt that put you squarely in the camp of someone I should not talk with.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
So you think the ignorant should remain ignorant? How is that productive?
No - but I think that at a certain point - it becomes obvious that conversation is an exercise in futility. To be productive - conversation requires certain agreements.
Right, like how we should agree on the consensus definition of global warming.

When those agreements are not in place - it is better to recognize that the other person is just being deliberately obnoxious, and is in fact not interested in learning - but interested in scoring points or something like that.
Which appears to be your intent, as you try to "win" the conversation, by any means.

You communicated your intent when you called me a scumbag.
I communicated my intent when I called you unreasonable.

Being called names does not hurt my feelings at all - but I felt that put you squarely in the camp of someone I should not talk with.
So you run instead of facing the truth. So you're a liar and a coward.

Neinsense99
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
Climate change deniers using dirty tricks from 'tobacco wars'

http://phys.org/n...l#ajTabs
Reported.

Neinsense99 also has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop him.


You history of promoting garbage pseudoscience, playing rhetorical games targeting the gullible and contributing nothing will be called out, loudly and often. It is precisely because you have no genuine case that you try to suppress informed input and articulate expression that you know you cannot match.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
Neinsense99 also has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop him.
You history of promoting garbage pseudoscience, playing rhetorical games targeting the gullible and contributing nothing will be called out, loudly and often. It is precisely because you have no genuine case that you try to suppress informed input and articulate expression that you know you cannot match.
Neinsense99 still has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that still doesn't stop him.

Neinsense99
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
Neinsense99 also has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that doesn't stop him.
You history of promoting garbage pseudoscience, playing rhetorical games targeting the gullible and contributing nothing will be called out, loudly and often. It is precisely because you have no genuine case that you try to suppress informed input and articulate expression that you know you cannot match.
Neinsense99 still has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that still doesn't stop him.


Predictably petty and pedantic. Yawn....
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
Neinsense99 still has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that still doesn't stop him.
Predictably petty and pedantic. Yawn....
Neinsense99 Has even less to add to the conversation, and yet he continues.

Neinsense99
3.4 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
Neinsense99 still has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that still doesn't stop him.
Predictably petty and pedantic. Yawn....
Neinsense99 Has even less to add to the conversation, and yet he continues.


Rather than swap down votes with the willfully obtuse, I'll partake of an outdoor music festival, nestled snuggly in the foothills of the Rockies. Meanwhile, carry on shilling, if that's what rocks your world.

Learn more about logical fallacies and real critical thinking here:
http://rationalwi...-science
or here http://rationalwi...y_theory

Science under fire from 'merchants of doubt': US historian
http://phys.org/n...ian.html
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (10) Jul 21, 2013
Neinsense99 still has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that still doesn't stop him.
Predictably petty and pedantic. Yawn....
Neinsense99 Has even less to add to the conversation, and yet he continues.
Rather than swap down votes with the willfully obtuse, I'll partake of an outdoor music festival, nestled snuggly in the foothills of the Rockies. Meanwhile, carry on shilling, if that's what rocks your world.
Neinsense99 has now strayed entirely away from the subject of the conversation, and still he continues.

Let's try and bring him back, shall we?

Neinsense99, what is the consensus definition for the term, global warming?

djr
5 / 5 (7) Jul 21, 2013
"Right, like how we should agree on the consensus definition of global warming."

No - more like how calling each other scumbags, liars, and cowards is probably a good indicator that it is time to cut and run. For me - one of those agreements I was talking about was having a level of maturity, and respect that you seem not on board with. What is it with stuff like calling someone a coward? And then you say that I will do anything to 'win'. My perception is exactly the same - that you will do anything to win. I would expect people to feel strongly about their position - and to be diligent about defending it. Again - for me - that comes under the heading of maturity - and at some point it is prudent to disengage. I think that when terms like, coward, liar, and scumbag start being used - that point has been reached.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2013
For me - one of those agreements I was talking about was having a level of maturity, and respect that you seem not on board with.
LOL. You wouldn't know what maturity and respect are.

What is it with stuff like calling someone a coward?
You are what you are. Why won't you agree to the consensus definition of global warming? What are you afraid of?

And then you say that I will do anything to 'win'.
With you, it's truth be damned, context be damned, scruples be damned.

djr = coward, liar, scumbag

Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2013
Ubavontuba spewed:
For me - one of those agreements I was talking about was having a level of maturity, and respect that you seem not on board with.
LOL. You wouldn't know what maturity and respect are.

What is it with stuff like calling someone a coward?
You are what you are. Why won't you agree to the consensus definition of global warming? What are you afraid of?

And then you say that I will do anything to 'win'.
With you, it's truth be damned, context be damned, scruples be damned.

djr = coward, liar, scumbag


Is it any surprise to find that behind the 'tuba, there is a blowhard?
djr
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2013
"What are you afraid of?"

Oh - dying of cancer (I watched my father do that), big ass wasps, economic collapse, probably a few other things I can't think of right now. I spend most of my time working (sucks but I have to eat some how), gardening (trying to start a business), exercising (relates to being afraid of cancer), and reading about science and technology. I am very interested in ideas like the singularity. I am very interested is seeing if the human race can transcend it's current level of ignorance (check out sunnis and shias- killing each other for some stupid reason or another). My biggest fear is that we will not transcend our ignorance. I love Physorg, and have spent a fair amount of time trying to counter the anti science ignorance I see on Physorg. Coming to the conclusion that is futile - perhaps have to stop playing god, and let the universe take it's own course. Then you say - "With you, it's truth be damned, context be damned, scruples be damned." cont.
djr
4.3 / 5 (7) Jul 23, 2013
You have no idea how counter that is to reality. From my perspective - you have no idea how ignorant your posts are - and how you are the one who does not care about facts - but more importantly - when someone disagrees with you - you default to this kind of ignorance -

djr = coward, liar, scumbag

I am actually none of those things (in my humble opinion) - but more importantly - you actually know very little about me - and simply advertise your level of ignorance by broadcasting that kind of meanness.
Neinsense99
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 23, 2013
Once again, if you want to enjoy the science articles with the nonsense, hide the comments. That, or find a site that enforces its rules. Or make one.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2013
Lots of glaciers are increasing.

The vast majority are shrinking.

But they concentrate their studies on ones which are retreating, thereby reinforcing a bias
.
The real bias here is yours, as you chose to focus on the minority that are growing, owing, ironically, to GW increasing local precipitation.

Are glaciers growing or retreating?: Basic
Are glaciers growing or retreating?: Intermediate
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2013
Clearly you are selecting information to match your pre-selected view.

So switching up the context and subsequently making false accusations is your idea of honesty? Really?

Clearly you are boldly lying (and presenting false testimony) to support your pre-selected view.

If you believe that the data regarding glacier melt does not support the premise that the system is warming - where is your evidence?

In the global temperature record. Shall I post it again?

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

Looky there, 16 years of cooling.

djr = lying scumbag.

Look here, 16 years of warming.

http://www.woodfo....4/trend

Now who's the lying scumbag?
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2013
Neinsense99 still has nothing of value to add to the conversation, but that still doesn't stop him.
Predictably petty and pedantic. Yawn....
Neinsense99 Has even less to add to the conversation, and yet he continues.

You lack the humour to be entertaining, the knowledge to be informative, and have all the charm and attraction of a deceased rat which suffered from leprosy and incontinence.
deepsand
3.2 / 5 (9) Jul 26, 2013
LOL. You wouldn't know what maturity and respect are.

You should be flattered that others emulate you, UTuba.