Vostok Station rests at the so-called "Pole of Cold" in the
heart of Antarctica. International climatology researchers have
used the station as a drilling point. The ice cores they've
extracted have become the subject of substantial controversy.
Some scientists say that they provide evidence of global warming,
while the Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research has expressed
concern that they were contaminated.Vostok was able to
provide researchers with one metric this month that there is little
room to debate -- Vostok has suffered through the coldest April temperature in its recorded history.Temperatures in Vostok
on Thursday hit -106 degrees Fahrenheit and have not been updated, as
the station is currently not responding. Typical temperatures
for April are a balmier -85 degrees Fahrenheit.Amid the cold
wave at the birthplace of warming claims, a major geological event is
promising to add a wrinkle to the climate debate, handing AGW
advocates another opportunity to develop new theories to explain away
cooling. The volcanic eruption from the Eyjafjallajökull
volcano in Iceland may
worsen, according to Risk Management Solutions in Newark
Calif.RMS says that Eyjafjallajökull eruptions may worsen
and additionally another Icelandic volcano named Katla is now
"probable" to erupt. Further eruptions would not only
disrupt air travel, but the climate. RMS predicts that the
Volcanic Explosivity Index (VEI) may reach more than 4; more than the
infamous Mount Saint Helens eruption.The two largest
eruptions of the twentieth century measured 6 VEI -- the 1991 Mount
Pinatubo eruption in the Philippines and the 1912 Novarupta eruption
in Alaska. VEI is a logarithmic scale, thus even if the
eruption reaches 4 VEI, as predicted, that's still a mere
one-hundredth of the ash that was ejected by Pinatubo or Novarupta.
Current theory says that such an eruption would not have a major
impact on the global climate.AGW theorists, however, have a
propensity for coming up with novel explanations to try to preserve
warming theory in the face of cooling trends. Attempts have
been made to explain away Antarctica's cooling. One approach is
to say it is actually warming, using questionably estimated data
(extrapolated based on current satellite data and past weather
station measurements). A second attempt is to admit that the
southern-most continent is cooling, but that the cooling is due to
the ozone layer depletion.The increased volcanic activity in
Iceland should be ideal for AGW advocates as it gives them yet
another opportunity to "make the model fit the data".
Expect possible claims in the near future that volcanic ash's cooling
contribution has been understated in past models.
quote: 1/4 of the C02 that has been saved
quote: The amount of CO2 released by the volcano is about 1/4 of the C02 that has been saved by the reduction in European air travel.
quote: We just don't give a shit when they don't effect western civilization. Nor should we.
quote: So I shouldn't care about the welfare of you or your family...?
quote: Temperatures in Vostok on Thursday hit -106 degrees Fahrenheit and have not been updated, as the station is currently not responding.
quote: Headline: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995
quote: He's saying the INSTRUMENTAL record (HadCrut3) shows no statistically significant warming over the last 15 years (and slight cooling over the last 8-9 years).
quote: Vostok has suffered through the coldest April in its recorded history.
quote: He did give you a link to a weather site - did you bother to look at it? Weatherunderground which uses NWS reporting (as does Weather and accuweather and most others) to show this
quote: you can easily look at the trends there as well
quote: as to look at individual years' data. . . Neither of which do you get from the nasa.gov data you listed.
quote: They don't undermine the validity of the data
quote: This article sounds like more drivel from the "we don't believe in science" crowd.
quote: Global warming is fake and God is real, right?
quote: Has this "debate" really come down to preemptively attacking theories/solutions that haven't even been raised yet?
quote: Or is this simply a weak attempt to discredit the ridiculous amount of research in support of global warming by pointing to single isolated and localized occurrences?
quote: My mistake, I guess DDT, Leaded Gasoline, MTBE, and the disposal of toxic waste into the ocean and rivers is perfectly alright after all.
quote: In fact, the strongest factor forcing the leaded gas phaseout in the US wasn't the lead itself, but the fact it fouled catalytic converters, making emissions reductions impossible.
quote: MTBE will give water a bad taste if you allow it to leak into ground supplies...but otherwise its entirely harmless.
quote: Don't you know many locations have enormous concentrations of lead in the soil and water -- lead found there naturally?
quote: If you don't want MTBE in your water -- don't put MTBE in leaky tanks.
quote: Way to miss the point.
quote: MTBE is far less dangerous than half the things under your kitchen sink. Should we ban them also?
quote: My mistake, I guess DDT, Leaded Gasoline, MTBE, and the disposal of toxic waste into the ocean and rivers is perfectly alright after all.
quote: I fail to see what the existence of a giant spaghetti monster has to do with this article or its claims.
quote: "BTW, you should use Firefox it will spell check for you"
quote: According to the author of this article, its 21 degree colder in this one place, which apparently equals the world. Its not global warming we should be worrying about, its GLOBAL FREEZING!
quote: He's got a point though; You can't look at one spot and come to a conclusion, due to all the interactions involved. Example: warmer temps in the pacific coast pushes the warm front farther north, creating a cooling effect in the US. So you have warmer overall temps causing localized cooling, hence the folly at looking at one spot and coming to a determination, something GW detractors simply do not care to comprehend.
quote: I essentially gave up reading the article after the intro, as it leaks of bias.
quote: Last time I checked there is no definitive answers on climate change. So if you now something that me and 100s of countries that attended Cop15 dont, them please share.
quote: That said, I must disagree with your assertion that I presented "pseudofacts". I presented hard numbers in this piece and discussion on current theoretical tactics.
quote: Vostok has suffered through the coldest April temperature in its recorded history.
quote: If you are really as unbiased as you claim, I commend you. I apologize if you took my tone to somehow be elitist or insulting.
quote: Should not the party performing an extraordinary action - such as the chemical output we've seen since the industrial revolution - be the party required to demonstrate, reasonably, that that action is safe?
quote: I would rather err on the side of caution
quote: our article doesn't provide an argument against global warming, it just takes a snipe at people that do.
quote: You can't look at one spot and come to a conclusion
quote: The story about Vostok is interesting in how it contrasts my own experiences earlier this year.
quote: Indeed, I believe your example and the one offered in this piece illustrate the folly of taking individual events out of context.
quote: What so when a single bit of data suggest that global warming isn't true, you use this as a spearhead to launch an assault on people that believe in it.
quote: U.S. satellite measurements show Arctic sea ice extent in 2009 – the area of the Arctic Ocean covered by floating ice – was the third lowest since satellite measurements were first made in 1979.
quote: Satellite observations have been tremendously valuable in identifying these changes, but can’t tell us what’s going on beneath the ice.
quote: Ice core drilling in the fast ice off Australia's Davis Station in East Antarctica by the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Co-Operative Research Centre shows that last year, the ice had a maximum thickness of 1.89m, its densest in 10 years. The average thickness of the ice at Davis since the 1950s is 1.67m.
quote: There's no harm in trying to develop models, but when people view them as a religion, try to use them push expensive legislation and restrictions on mankind, that becomes an issue.
quote: Sure, the models scrwed up, and we'll update the software to take into account what happened and why, and have a more accurate model. But that doesn't mean our entire understanding of weather systems was incorrect, just the predicted outcome of that system.
quote: What so when a single bit of data suggest that global warming isn't true, you use this as a spearhead to launch an assault on people that believe in it. Yet if someone posts a fact against, you say we must look at the bigger picture? hypocrite!
quote: you know you're on the losing side of an argument when...You start proclaiming the bad things your opponents are going to do, rather than those they have actually done.
quote: BTW, AGW deniers have abused children in the past, and will again in the future. Won't someone think of the children?
quote: And what does it say about your argument when you make up things that I never wrote and try to attribute them to me, eh?
quote: It says you have poor reading comprehension skills, since I neither made anything up nor attributed it to you.
quote: It still suggests that warming theory is wrong by showing that localized/short term data does not correlate to a global trend.
quote: just use the temperature data for the next few hours from the large portion of the planet that is currently moving toward the night side
quote: You just explained the entire problem with CAGW theory. The figure for climate sensitivity (the amount the planet warms for a given increase of CO2) weren't calculated a priori. They were based on the assumption that nearly all the warming in the 1970-1998 spike was due to CO2...because they "couldn't think of a better reason".
quote: Of course, as your example shows, the planet can actually be warming when forcings are decreasing (take the period from 12 noon to 4pm every day), which makes their assumption -- in Phil Jones' words -- "bollocks".
quote: This is wrong on so many points, it is likely futile to reply. Still, hope springs eternal to the human breast. Shall we begin?
quote: That's just the point...did you even read my post? The a priori computational method gives a sensitivity about 1/3 of what the IPCC assumes -- far too small to be of concern. Instead, they use an empirical method where the assumed warming from the 1970 baseline period is assumed to be primarily responsible to increased GHG forcings.
quote: The only way these models can come close to approximating this known past behavior is to use entirely different (and much higher) values for solar forcing than they assume for contemporary modeling. Plug those values back into today's results, and CO2 sensitivity drops like a stone.
quote: Suggesting that a theory about large scale/long term trends can be questioned by " localized/short term data [that] does not correlate to a global trend." shows not only your lack of understanding of GW theory, but also of mathematics.
quote: The lack of understanding is yours: The current hypothesis is nothing but a large pile of localized/short term data, conflated and puffed up with wild speculation and tales of Global Destruction to create the appearance of a large scale/long term trend. Refuting such large numbers of minute bits of data requires a similarly large number of minute bits of contradicting data, and the Vostok measurements are just one of those bits of data.
quote: What Vostok measurements?
quote: Did you only see them?
quote: Is the report of 1 day temperature and a reference to a monthly low, for a month not even over, enough for you to draw conclusions about a cooling or warming trend at Vostok.
quote: How many of those imaginary "minute bits" have you piled up yet to oppose to, let's say, global anomaly measured by satellite as computed by notorious AGW skeptics:
quote: Good luck with your "minute bits" gathering ....
quote: PS: to stay on my original comment before these pointless digressions, arguing that a localized short term trend questions a longer term global trend because the former does not correlate with the latter is a mathematical aberration (no need to even involve the physics here). If you try to think about it for a few seconds, you'll probably realize why.
quote: Only insofar as there's a new low where popular hypotheses about a warming trend insists there should be a high
quote: which can prompt some proponents of that warming trend hypotheses to whip up some explanation for the failing of their model that predicted that warming trend "with no signs of stopping".
quote: Try as I might, I can't parse this sentence. It looks like you're requesting the contrary information or the holes in the presented information while simultaneously insisting I exclude all countering information except that pertaining to one particular bit of data.
quote: Anyway, your graph does not at all support anthropogenic global warming;
quote: the graph does not exhibit anything unusual or ordinary, certainly nothing that can lead one to suspect CO2 is causing the temperature changes depicted.
quote: ever since I took a careful look at the data
quote: It got colder.
quote: Thus, something is wrong with the model proposed under the AGW hypothesis, and this fact will likely cause some of the AGW proponents to panic , as outlined in the article.
quote: East Antarctica is four times the size of west Antarctica. A discovery this month found that east Antarctica has been showing what the scientists call as "significant cooling in recent decades". A report prepared for last week's meeting of Antarctic Treaty nations (held in Washington) went on to note that the South Pole had shown "significant cooling in recent decades. "
quote: Wrong, there is no climate model that projects the daily temperatures at Vostok.
quote: Wrong (1 day data does not un-make a trend + the "no signs of stopping" for one location and 1 day is pure non-sense.)
quote: Because there's no "bit" here (i.e. you don't have a clue of what a trend is, or a global average), hence "imaginary".
quote: Not only you suck at basic maths, but also at logic or basic comprehension.
quote: I just showed a global trend that incorporates all the "bits" for you, whether it is natural or anthropogenic is irrelevant to the point that was discussed.
quote: That's the one you can compare to models, not a 1 day temperature measurements at Vostok.
quote: Not only you use imaginary "bits" in your argument, but you also reply to imaginary arguments.
quote: Don't flatter yourself ... it is pretty clear that you have never taken a careful look at any data.
quote: It always gets colder when moving toward in winter.
quote: The question is, is there a long term cooling trend there?
quote: Obviously you don't know because you don't even know what the data are ... but worse, you don't care.
quote: I can't wait, it sounds exciting ! People jumping out of the windows and all ...
quote: let's say, global anomaly measured by satellite as computed by notorious AGW skeptics:http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH...
quote: Oops! You've linked to troposphere temperatures, not surface temperatures.
quote: Surface temperatures have declined since 2001. Take a look at a dataset like HADCrut3.
quote: Worse for the alarmists, take a look at global sea ice levels. The values are exactly where they were back in 1979 when we first started measuring:
quote: Whether or not that warming is being influenced by man's activities - specifically, carbon dioxide we're putting into the air - is what's up for debate.