backtop

Print 136 comment(s) - last by roboray.. on Apr 29 at 11:54 PM

Vostok is infamous for its controversial ice cores that some say are evidence that the world is warming. Vostok set a record for the coldest April in history by over 20 degrees Fahrenheit.  (Source: NOAA)

Worsening eruptions in Iceland could cut warming advocates a break in the midst of cooling temperatures by casting doubt on the source of global cooling.  (Source: Carolyn Kaster/Associated Press)
The southernmost continent is cooling

The 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.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Balance
By straycat74 on 4/23/2010 3:19:45 PM , Rating: 1
Won't the amount of xtra CO2 counter-act the cooling effects of the ash in the atmosphere?




RE: Balance
By alanore on 4/23/2010 3:31:50 PM , Rating: 2
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.

The ash cloud will actually reflect radiation causing a slight reduction in localised temperature.


RE: Balance
By straycat74 on 4/23/2010 3:50:14 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
1/4 of the C02 that has been saved

Who purchased the offsets for the "saved" CO2?


RE: Balance
By Kurz on 4/23/2010 4:22:25 PM , Rating: 3
Al gore better be getting a cut or all hell will break loose.


RE: Balance
By roboray on 4/29/2010 11:54:44 PM , Rating: 2
What's Al Gore going to do? Pick up his Internet and go home?


RE: Balance
By Jaybus on 4/23/2010 4:30:32 PM , Rating: 3
Keep in mind H2O is by far the most influential greenhouse gas. This thing is putting out a lot of H2O. Far more H2O than CO2. On the other hand, an increase in H2O along with the fine ash could cause an increase in cloud cover. Increased cloud cover, through reflection of solar radiation, could have a dramatic cooling effect.


RE: Balance
By porkpie on 4/23/2010 6:26:42 PM , Rating: 1
To correct a few things here. The "ash cloud" only causes minor cooling; the real effect is from the sulfur dioxide, which can form a stratospheric haze that lasts for a year or even longer.

Secondly, you're right about the amount of H20 in the blast (in fact, you can't have an explosive volcanic eruption without at least a certain amount of water), but the half life of H20 artificially added to the atmosphere is very low.


RE: Balance
By Tony Swash on 4/23/2010 4:48:27 PM , Rating: 5
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.


Thats not true.

Volcano CO2 budget (CO2 is emitted independent of ash) ~200,000 tons per day X 30 days of eruption = 6,000,000 tons of CO2. This based on consensus of volcanologists.

Plane CO2 Budget – assumes half of EU planes haven’t flown for the past six days 340,000 EU tons per day X 0.5 EU shutdown X 6 days = ~1,000,000 tons of savings.

People using alternative transportation as a replacement for aircraft – cars, trains, battleships , etc. ~1,000,000 tons of extra CO2 (Is a battleship more “green” than a jumbo jet?)

The total gain is 6,000,000 – 1,000,000 + 1,000,000 = 6,000,000 tons of excess CO2 from the volcano. The temporary aircraft shutdown has little or no net impact on CO2 emissions, but the volcano has a large impact.


RE: Balance
By porkpie on 4/23/2010 6:30:37 PM , Rating: 1
Even the volcano itself doesn't have that much of an effect (either warming nor cooling) ... it's a baby as volcanoes go. Pinatubo was more than 100X the size of this eruption.

However, when the earth continues to cool over the next few years, I'm sure a few climatologists will try to point fingers at this eruption as sole cause of the problem.


RE: Balance
By FITCamaro on 4/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Balance
By thurston on 4/24/10, Rating: 0
RE: Balance
By Kurz on 4/25/2010 4:01:48 PM , Rating: 2
Since its not really our concern.
We are different countries.
From what I see most people handle Volcanoes just fine.

Its those natural disasters like huge 8.8 earth quakes or tsunami's that wipe out lots of infrastructure with little to no warning.

Most of the time Volcanoes usually give ample of warning.


RE: Balance
By thurston on 4/25/2010 6:23:22 PM , Rating: 1
So I shouldn't care about the welfare of you or your family, since you are from a different area than me? Why limit yourself to the borders of the United States? Why don't you just limit your concern to the area immediately surrounding you? Why do people stop deserving humanity at some imaginary line on a map?


RE: Balance
By SPOOFE on 4/25/2010 7:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So I shouldn't care about the welfare of you or your family...?

It would be creepy if you did.


RE: Balance
By eachus on 4/28/2010 12:55:56 AM , Rating: 1
We just don't give a s*** when they don't effect western civilization. Nor should we.

Um, define civilization. Give three examples...

I'm being a little silly here, but there are lots of countries where professors at US or European universities bemoan "cultural imperialism," while the residents of those (second and) third world countries wish for more of it.

So I assume FITCamaro meant to say: "If the volcanoes don't affect inhabited areas, they don't bother me," and move on.

Oh, and if you really want to be pedantic, there were several ancient civilization that merged to form western civilization. It is just for the last century or so that the Earth has had a single ubiquitous civilization.


RE: Balance
By Chernobyl68 on 4/26/2010 4:10:17 PM , Rating: 2
there are no battleships on active duty anywhere, anymore.


RE: Balance
By alanore on 4/24/2010 8:43:19 PM , Rating: 3
Apologies I was wrong, they believe Eyjafjallajoekull is emitting between “150,000 and 300,000? tons of CO2 a day. The upper estimate is almost equivalent to the daily European aviation industry(350,000).


RE: Balance
By drycrust3 on 4/26/2010 1:40:54 PM , Rating: 2
I think Benjamin Franklin was the first to recognize that the cooling of the planet was due to a volcanic eruption.


I can't wait......
By RjBass on 4/23/2010 3:04:45 PM , Rating: 5
...till the 2nd volcano erupts and we can all witness first hand how it may or may not impact global temperatures.




RE: I can't wait......
By Anoxanmore on 4/23/2010 3:14:32 PM , Rating: 5
But, but, I thought the colder it got it proved it was getting warmer... ;)

(Bloody whole week of Jan at -20 - -40 F actual temps here sucked, and I don't live in Canada)


RE: I can't wait......
By MonkeyPaw on 4/23/2010 3:34:16 PM , Rating: 5
Have they figured out how to tax the volcano yet?


RE: I can't wait......
By Anoxanmore on 4/23/2010 3:38:23 PM , Rating: 5
You know that is a good idea, in order to "offset" our supposed CO2 emissions, lets just set off a volcano every few years. :)

I say Tom Hanks gets to jump in first.


RE: I can't wait......
By AssBall on 4/23/2010 5:04:18 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Temperatures in Vostok on Thursday hit -106 degrees Fahrenheit and have not been updated, as the station is currently not responding.


While Tom takes care of the volcano, we better send Kurt Russel down to take care of this thing.


RE: I can't wait......
By JediJeb on 4/26/2010 2:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
I can't believe I missed the symptoms before now! Most of the AGW crowd are suffering from a Brain Cloud! That's the problem right there.


Incomplete data
By Steele on 4/24/2010 12:28:15 AM , Rating: 1
The data is incomplete: it is not yet possible to say that "AGW" is real or not, to claim either is true with any certainty would be foolish.

That said, Michael, there's some problems with your post. First of all, the coldest temperature on Thursday was -111F, not -106F.

Second, it is disingenious to claim that the climate is cooling. It is in some places, to be sure; but elsewhere it is warming. You might as well say it is currently cooling since the sun went down and this evening's temperature has dropped.

At best, it is relatively stable over the mid-term. At worst, it is warming. Incidentally, a google search for "average global temperature graph cooling trend" brings up several links to DT articles written by your pseudonym.




RE: Incomplete data
By porkpie on 4/24/2010 10:36:41 AM , Rating: 1
" It is in some places, to be sure; but elsewhere it is warming. "

Wrong.
quote:
Headline: Climategate U-turn as scientist at centre of row admits: There has been no global warming since 1995

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Cl...


RE: Incomplete data
By Steele on 4/24/2010 4:45:22 PM , Rating: 1
Porkpie, that link does not refute my statement.

The article there, the so-called "Climategate," refers to the hockey-stick graph, the one showing an abrupt and painfully obvious warming trend in the last 10 to 15 years.

It does not refer to other graphs of warming, such as those on the wikipedia page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
or here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

Now, I'm not saying that those are all correct, while Dr. Jones is incorrect, just that for every link saying 'A', you can find a link (or a journal or three) that says 'B'.

Hence, my earlier statement, it is disingenious to say that the planet is cooling.


RE: Incomplete data
By Steele on 4/24/2010 4:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
In any case, measuring global temperatures is difficult at best. It's not simply a matter of averaging temp readings from weather stations all over, so any warming or cooling trends shown thusly must be taken with a grain of salt.

I can tell you, though, that in interior Alaska, our winters have been warming for the last several years, but our summers have been getting cooler. The opposite is true in the southern part of Alaska.


RE: Incomplete data
By porkpie on 4/24/2010 5:40:10 PM , Rating: 2
"the so-called "Climategate," refers to the hockey-stick graph"

Huh? You're wrong on several counts. First of all, the Hockey-stick controversy is just one tiny part of ClimateGate. Second, the HS graph is just a splicing of proxy data to the instrumental record, the furor here is over the statistical methods used to do the splicing between two totally different types of datasets. Jones' statement has nothing to do with it. 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).

You are correct that there are serious issues with trying to convert a mass of global datapoints into one average measurement. The problems are even worse when those doing the averaging are throwing out stations showing cooling trends, in favor of those showing warming trends.


RE: Incomplete data
By jbartabas on 4/26/2010 1:40:40 PM , Rating: 2
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).


No, he is saying that both the warming since 1995 and the cooling since 2002 are not statistically significant:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8511670.stm


RE: Incomplete data
By SPOOFE on 4/26/2010 6:16:28 PM , Rating: 3
Sure, but there's no significant political or social movement demanding we pour trillions of dollars down the drain to stave off global cooling.


Fahrenheit Or Celsius
By mgilbert on 4/24/2010 8:08:51 PM , Rating: 2
A record low of -128.6° F. was recorded at Vostok in July, 1983. The reported temperatures in this article must have been in Celsius. If I'm right, and the 106° was the Celsius reading, the Fahrenheit reading was 159° F!




RE: Fahrenheit Or Celsius
By jbartabas on 4/24/2010 8:16:46 PM , Rating: 2
According to the source provided in the article, it is in Fahrenheit. The mean temperature was actually -110 F (with a min at -111 F).
This is still cooler than most of April's mean temperature ... but of course we don't have the monthly mean available yet.


RE: Fahrenheit Or Celsius
By Concreteboy9 on 4/25/2010 6:33:48 AM , Rating: 2
In the southern hemisphere, January is a summer month and July is a winter month. Just FYI


RE: Fahrenheit Or Celsius
By geddarkstorm on 4/26/2010 1:05:13 PM , Rating: 2
The article said coldest /April/ ever recorded for that place. Considering it's that close in temperature to the middle of the winter (July) season for Antartica, while being a few months away, is quite something.


Clarifications about the article
By jbartabas on 4/23/2010 5:33:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Vostok has suffered through the coldest April in its recorded history.


Could the author provide the data source for this assertion. For some reason, I could not find the average temperature at Vostok for April ... maybe because there is still a week to go for the month of April to be over. For now, that's all I can find, in terms of annual means:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_...

or monthly means in text format:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//t...

The author also seem to have derived a 'cooling trend'. Could he share the statistical methods and the data he has used to infer such a conclusion?




RE: Clarifications about the article
By SoCalBoomer on 4/26/2010 7:58:02 PM , Rating: 2
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 - you can easily look at the trends there as well as to look at individual years' data. . .

Neither of which do you get from the nasa.gov data you listed.


By jbartabas on 4/27/2010 11:26:03 AM , Rating: 2
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


Indeed, I did bother to look at it, as you can see from my comment 3 days ago:
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=18204...

quote:
you can easily look at the trends there as well


I must have missed that then. Would you care to tell me how much is the trend, and over what period it is computed? Also, for some reason, I can't see any data before May 2004.

quote:
as to look at individual years' data. . . Neither of which do you get from the nasa.gov data you listed.


I am not sure what you mean here. The data I have linked to provide:
* monthly means,
* seasonal means,
* and annual means
for temperatures since 1959 (when data are available).

As for being able to "look at" trends, you can easily do that on the graph I have posted. There is no computed trend though, but as far as I can tell, there is none either at Weatherunderground.


Remind me again...
By psonice on 4/25/2010 12:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
Was this supposed to be a news site or an opinion site?




RE: Remind me again...
By maugrimtr on 4/26/2010 7:54:50 AM , Rating: 2
Should be in the blogs section since it's completely biased and mentions one single objective data point - that's it's cold in Antarctica. Surprisingly, it's been one of the coldest years in recent memory for many countries. It's a worldwide fact and has been for a while. This doesn't bust the GW theory - it just shows there is scope for erratic climate behaviour. To most of us in science, this means little. There are always data points which don't fit some nice theoretical smooth curve of data. They don't undermine the validity of the data since they don't demonstrate a trend - just an oddity. Such outliers are normal.

What worries me about the post is the all too common built in bias that one single cold year somehow miraculously destroys the validity of global warming as a theory (of whatever flavour you prefer - human made or not). It doesn't.

My suggestion to the OP. Put your opinions in a blog, and just give us the news otherwise. The article was completely biased and had no place on a news site.


RE: Remind me again...
By SPOOFE on 4/26/2010 2:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
They don't undermine the validity of the data

But it does undermine the supposed meaning behind the data postulated by some proponents of the AGW hypothesis.


Great to See...
By mmatis on 4/23/2010 5:14:30 PM , Rating: 4
you back! Hope that you post more frequently in the future to counteract the Mickster...




Regardless
By goku on 4/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Regardless
By SPOOFE on 4/24/2010 6:42:22 PM , Rating: 3
CO2 levels on this planet used to be drastically higher, coinciding with one of the most biologically diverse periods on this planet.


By straycat74 on 4/23/2010 4:43:45 PM , Rating: 2
When will we be able to wrastle that darn hurricane causing, earthquake makin', volcanoe blowin' upper machine for DUBYA? Save us Tom Cruise!!




Actually . . .
By blueboy09 on 4/23/2010 7:13:27 PM , Rating: 2
the coldest temperature "with the lowest reliably measured temperature on Earth of -89.2 °C (-128.6 °F)."- SOURCE: WIKIPEDIA Place: Vostok, Antarctica. I always wondered how in the hell did they get this temperature if their instruments fail that much? Now, I know that they said April was the coldest on record, but I know there's got to other cooler temps than that if they can't even keep their instruments that current and up-to-date. - BLUEBOY




Aviation Trails
By Patrick Canney on 4/24/2010 9:18:38 AM , Rating: 2
So what about them?

I was sure the last time western air transport was grounded, the global temperature actually climbed 1 or 2 degrees uniformly. Which I am sure was the few days after 9/11.
Some Australian scientists noticed a fluctuation in their measurements correlating (or at least appearing to) with the lack of aircraft.

It was hypothesized that the trails of aviation craft is actually suppressing the global temp after this date. And I think it is maintained that deflecting/blocking sun light is a major player in the ground temperature.

I have a hard time dealing with AGW activists. The equations to our planets temperature seem easy enough to me without scientists trying to muddy up what is a relatively simple problem.




What?
By Yawgm0th on 4/23/10, Rating: 0
Pfft..
By Ard on 4/23/10, Rating: -1
RE: Pfft..
By SPOOFE on 4/23/2010 5:17:38 PM , Rating: 3
I don't see God mentioned in the article. Could you cite it? That'd be a big help, thanks.


RE: Pfft..
By invidious on 4/23/2010 5:21:31 PM , Rating: 5
I've never made a post here picking a part someone's comments line by line, but yours was so stupid it felt like the right time to give it a whirl.
quote:
This article sounds like more drivel from the "we don't believe in science" crowd.
His argument was that AGW is not based on good science. I am not sure how you interpret that as him not believing in science. In fact I am pretty sure questioning the data is a core tennant of the scientific method.

quote:
Global warming is fake and God is real, right?
I fail to see what the existance of a giant spagetti monster has to do with this article or its claims. Or AGW in general for that matter. Seriously dude there is no references to religion or morality anywhere in the blog.

quote:
Has this "debate" really come down to preemptively attacking theories/solutions that haven't even been raised yet?
We are currently spending/wasting billions of dollars based on what Al Gore has convinced people might happen. So yes I think preemptive action is fair game at this point. Hippies have been greenwashing children for decades now under the unproven assumption that the planet needs saving.

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?
If this was the single case that contradicted AGW then we wouldnt be having any discussions. Maybe you should try looking at the data and forming an opinion instead of listening to opinions and forming data.


RE: Pfft..
By goku on 4/23/10, Rating: 0
RE: Pfft..
By porkpie on 4/24/2010 11:05:19 AM , Rating: 3
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.
All but the last one were, yes. DDT is the worst scare of them all. Based on some the shoddiest research done by pro-environmentalist factions, one of the safest, most useful chemicals ever known was banned. And as a result, malaria levels around the world spiked, resulting in the deaths of millions. Note that some nations never banned DDT, and still use it today, and even many of those who did ban it, are now reconsidering the ill-fated move. In fact, most of the nations who did ban it, did so under heavy pressure from the US and Europe (where even now, Europe refuses most imports from DDT-using nations):

http://www.scidev.net/en/news/more-african-nations...

Many nations are still using leaded gasoline today, without seeing the horrible effects the environmentalists predicted in the 1970s. 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.

As for MTBE, the problem here is even simpler. If you have a leaking tank -- FIX it. End of problem. MTBE will give water a bad taste if you allow it to leak into ground supplies...but otherwise its entirely harmless.


RE: Pfft..
By thurston on 4/24/2010 5:24:38 PM , Rating: 1
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.


I don't think the stuff (I'm guessing lead of some sort, tetraethyl lead perhaps?) that was causing those fouled catalytic converters would be a good thing to release into the atmosphere. I'm sure we can all agree that less exposure to lead is a good thing.

quote:
MTBE will give water a bad taste if you allow it to leak into ground supplies...but otherwise its entirely harmless.


My water already tastes bad enough and I do consider foul tasting water a form of pollution even if it has no harmful effects. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say MTBE is harmless in drinking water. Most of the studies that have been conducted on MTBE were for the inhaled effects, which at high levels proved carcinogenic, but there is limited data on the ingested effects and I would rather be safe that sorry.


RE: Pfft..
By porkpie on 4/24/2010 6:58:51 PM , Rating: 4
" I'm sure we can all agree that less exposure to lead is a good thing."

Actually, we do NOT agree on this. This "zero tolerance" idiocy is indicative of all that's wrong with the environmental movement. What harm are a few stray atoms going to do you? Don't you know many locations have enormous concentrations of lead in the soil and water -- lead found there naturally?

" I do consider foul tasting water a form of pollution "

Way to miss the point. If you don't want MTBE in your water -- don't put MTBE in leaky tanks. Problem solved. MTBE is far less dangerous than half the things under your kitchen sink. Should we ban them also?

Consumer idiocy is what banned MTBE. It's got a long, artificial, scary-sounding name...so the same person who realizes a bottle of laundry bleach or drain cleaner is safe if you don't let it leak, is willing to march in protest of MTBE.

Reducing exposure to lead -- or any other substance -- is only important to the point that it no longer becomes a health risk. Beyond that, it's a silly, pointless, futile, childish, and ultimately harmful waste of time. Erring on the side of caution is one thing, but total elimination is impossible, nor desired.


RE: Pfft..
By thurston on 4/24/2010 11:05:22 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Don't you know many locations have enormous concentrations of lead in the soil and water -- lead found there naturally?


Yes and I wouldn't want to live there, I imagine that one would have some sort of lead poisoning as a result. But, If you don't mind the high lead levels feel free to live there.

quote:
If you don't want MTBE in your water -- don't put MTBE in leaky tanks.


I agree with you totally, but I'm not in charge of MTBE storage else I would make sure it wasn't stored in leaky tanks. But it seems that some people in charge of storing MTBE containing products do store them in leaky containers and it ends up in water supplies.

quote:
Way to miss the point.


How did I miss the point? Why does foul tasting water not count as pollution when it comes from MTBE or any other contamination?

quote:
MTBE is far less dangerous than half the things under your kitchen sink. Should we ban them also?


No, but you might want make sure that someone who would mix the chemicals under a kitchen sink into their drinking water has some supervision.


RE: Pfft..
By thurston on 4/24/2010 11:05:52 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Don't you know many locations have enormous concentrations of lead in the soil and water -- lead found there naturally?


Yes and I wouldn't want to live there, I imagine that one would have some sort of lead poisoning as a result. But, If you don't mind the high lead levels feel free to live there.

quote:
If you don't want MTBE in your water -- don't put MTBE in leaky tanks.


I agree with you totally, but I'm not in charge of MTBE storage else I would make sure it wasn't stored in leaky tanks. But it seems that some people in charge of storing MTBE containing products do store them in leaky containers and it ends up in water supplies.

quote:
Way to miss the point.


How did I miss the point? Why does foul tasting water not count as pollution when it comes from MTBE or any other contamination?

quote:
MTBE is far less dangerous than half the things under your kitchen sink. Should we ban them also?


No, but you might want make sure that someone who would mix the chemicals under a kitchen sink into their drinking water has some supervision.


RE: Pfft..
By porkpie on 4/24/2010 11:23:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Yes and I wouldn't want to live there, I imagine that one would have some sort of lead poisoning as a result. "

Open foot, insert mouth. The region I was thinking of was Southwest Missouri -- where countless thousands of millions of tons of lead -- far more than have ever been added to all the gasoline in the world -- runs up all the way up to the surface, and the region's drinking water runs directly and continually over the deposits.

Strangely enough, the region has no elevated count of lead poisoning cases. Oops.


RE: Pfft..
By thurston on 4/24/2010 11:45:16 PM , Rating: 1
Like I said I don't want to live there but feel free.


RE: Pfft..
By whiskerwill on 4/25/2010 2:04:42 AM , Rating: 2
That the best you can do? You're probably afraid of lead fillings in your teeth too, aren't you?


RE: Pfft..
By thurston on 4/25/2010 2:25:22 PM , Rating: 2
I do believe lead is toxic, but if you don't feel free to ingest all you like.


RE: Pfft..
By SPOOFE on 4/25/2010 2:45:24 PM , Rating: 2
And microwave ovens use radiation. Do you avoid those like the plague, as well?


RE: Pfft..
By porkpie on 4/25/2010 9:25:55 PM , Rating: 3
"I do believe lead is toxic"

There isn't anything that isn't toxic in a large enough dose...including potatoes, caffeine, salt, vitamins A and D, and even water. Many toxic elements are actually required by the body-- selenium, chromium, copper...though in dietary form we call them "minerals" so as not to frighten ignorant fools like yourself.

Obsessing over a few stray atoms is pointless. The word "toxic" is meaningless without a dosage figure attached. Everything in life is toxic in a sufficiently large quantity.


RE: Pfft..
By SPOOFE on 4/24/2010 3:14:17 PM , Rating: 2
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.

All of which have nothing to do with the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis. This is one of the most disingenious tactics of the AGW fundamentalists like yourself: When your precious dogma is being threatened, retreat to the safe refuge of other vaguely environmentally-related issues that are completely unrelated to the dogma under fire.


RE: Pfft..
By thurston on 4/24/2010 4:35:50 PM , Rating: 2
I think the post was a response to the green-washing hippie comment not the global warming debate.


RE: Pfft..
By SPOOFE on 4/24/2010 6:45:13 PM , Rating: 2
Could be, but in the context of this thread, it was still a pretty ridiculous statement.


RE: Pfft..
By thurston on 4/24/2010 4:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I fail to see what the existence of a giant spaghetti monster has to do with this article or its claims.


You fool everyone knows the true God is the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

(BTW, you should use Firefox it will spell check for you)


RE: Pfft..
By whiskerwill on 4/25/2010 2:03:25 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
"BTW, you should use Firefox it will spell check for you"
We see it won't correct grammar or punctuation errors though.


RE: Pfft..
By thurston on 4/25/2010 2:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
No, but I wish it did. My spelling and grammar are both poor.


you know you're on the losing side of an argument when
By surt on 4/23/10, Rating: -1
By mandrews on 4/23/2010 3:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
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!

Obviously that is not what I wrote. I suggest you reread the article, perhaps?


By mandrews on 4/23/2010 4:02:50 PM , Rating: 5
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.

Actually, I think that's something that GW advocates fail to comprehend. They consistently try to make it look like there's a general warming trend, when actually there's evidence of mild warming or cooling (or no change at all) based on how you weight the numbers.

You did hit the nail on the head when you stated that you can't look to one spot and make a determination. I agree with that absolutely. The take home message here is that arguments for wild global temperature change are inherently flawed. The temperature will obviously fluctuate, but its beyond arrogant to think we're controlling it.

quote:

I essentially gave up reading the article after the intro, as it leaks of bias.


I fail to see how it's biased to provide examples that run counter to poor models. If by "bias" you mean that there's a logical argument for a certain point of view here, then I suppose I will concede that.

Again if you want to pay thousands of dollars a year for plans to try to "fix" the global "warming problem" you're welcome to, but please don't try to enforce your religion on others, please.


By alanore on 4/23/2010 4:36:40 PM , Rating: 2
I'm a global warming skeptic, However, your article doesn't provide an argument against global warming, it just takes a snipe at people that do.

This is a technology website, not a forum for your personal opinions on climate change. If you wish to present a scientific view into climate change then please do.

If your going to attack climate change theories then please present the theories first, don't just attack them assuming we are going to have a clue which theories. You've already had to post them in the comments section, because readers did have a clue as to what point you were trying to make. Not everyone is going to know what the 'tla' 'AGW' means. Also your useage makes you seem elitist, as if you are some how better than these AGW believers. I'm a skeptic it should be easy to make me agree with your stance. However you never presented a valid argument and the bias in the article just means that I'm not going trust a statement you make as being fact.

Your disregard for AGW and pseudo facts presented seem to perfectly mirror that of Pro-AGW supporters. You are the individuals that you are sniping at, its just that your sitting on the other side of the fence.

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.


By mandrews on 4/23/2010 4:56:35 PM , Rating: 4
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.

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. It is a handful of readers that seem bent on trying to imply that I'm claiming "global cooling" or such tripe.

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.

Absolutely. That's the whole point of this piece. The facts are contradictory and paint an unclear picture, and current models are far too poor to draw definitive conclusions from.

The problem isn't that pro-AGW individuals want to research the topic, it's that they want to push sweeping and expensive legislation globally, based on an unproven and badly flawed theory.


By Tyndel on 4/24/2010 5:15:18 AM , Rating: 5
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

JULY 26, 2007
How not to measure temperature, part 25

Is pretty interesting. :)

Just how reliable is the data and how much more accurate could it be? We know there are local fluctuations all over the globe shouldn't we be using all the data points we have available rather then extrapolating?


By gamerk2 on 4/26/2010 10:32:08 AM , Rating: 2
Hence the problem; thats why Ocean temps are often used, as those tend to be more flat across the globe. And even then, the best oyu can really do is get an idea on a global scale. Heck, for all we know, we warm the planet enough to mess with enough jet streams to actually cause a net cooling effect. Doesn't mean GW was false, just that we really screwed up what the outcome would be. Weather systems are chaotic systems, that newtonian physics do a really bad job of calculating (hence why its so hard to figure out the weather beyond a week, as any minute change in conditions has a profound effect on the larger system)

Its also worth noting, that despite a clear warming trend (in my eyes anyway), the planet still goes through its normal hot/cold cycles. So yes, you get extra warm periods, and slightly cooler periods. The point being, the cold periods are consistently warmer each time they come around. So again, you can't even use year-by-year data, but a trend-line that graphs the recent trend.


By porkpie on 4/26/2010 11:22:42 PM , Rating: 2
"Heck, for all we know, we warm the planet enough to mess with enough jet streams to actually cause a net cooling effect"

Physics isn't your strong point, I see. You can't cool the planet by warming it, period -- The heat has to go somewhere.

In theory, its possible that GW can cool some specific part of the globe through changing weather patterns. However, this can only happen by heating some OTHER area even more than it otherwise would have warmed.


By porkpie on 4/23/2010 6:44:38 PM , Rating: 5
"If your going to attack climate change theories then please present the theories first"

You mean you don't already know the theory? Your objection is rather like stating we can't dispute creationism without first presenting a treatise on the existence of god.


By HotFoot on 4/23/2010 6:54:40 PM , Rating: 2
I had a hard time reading the article too. I also consider myself a skeptic - I'm not convinced of either side of the debate.

But I can go cherry-picking data, too. For instance last month was the warmest March on record for average global surface temperatures. That doesn't prove global warming or the cause of it, but it's there. How does that compare to one region being cooler than it's norm? /shrug I guess it's news enough for masher to write about.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/04/10042...


By SPOOFE on 4/23/2010 9:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
The standard of evidence is NOT the same on the AGW skeptic side compared to the pro-AGW assertions. A single data point will not "disprove" the hypothesis that man is causing the planet to heat up; it requires a large number of such data points, and the Vostok readings are but one of them.

It's not "cherry-picking" to provide direct retorts to already-cherry-picked data.


By HotFoot on 4/25/2010 7:03:33 PM , Rating: 2
I do agree with you that we shouldn't take drastic action until we know better what's really going on.

However, one could disagree with you regarding which side of the debate bears the greater burden of proof. 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? From that view, I don't see why the burden of proof should like with the people saying "Wait a minute, what if this action is tremendously harmful?"

I doubt the subject can be proven one way or another. I would rather err on the side of caution, but even doing that the cost needs to be considered. We shouldn't lightly give up our freedoms and choices, including our economy. I would say that people wanting to change our whole economic system to try to change our CO2 output do, as you say, hold the burden of proof, because the changes they are asking for are so drastic. If what they were asking for was relatively cheap and easy, I would say hell let's just do it and keep working on the science.

I wish this topic hadn't become so politicised. It probably would have done everyone good if the politicians had left it alone a while longer.


By SPOOFE on 4/25/2010 7:45:27 PM , Rating: 2
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?

The key word in your question is "reasonably". We have pollution controls to keep toxic waste and chemicals out of water, controls that have mitigated smog tremendously, controls that keep hazardous byproducts of industry controlled, and punishments for those that fail to meet standards.

However, the reason we have those controls is because the polluting actions were found to be dangerous. The harm was established prior to forcing companies and individuals to not engage in those potentially dangerous behaviors.

You're asking that they prove a negative, which is impossible. "Prove that action X is not dangerous". That's like me telling you to prove that you've never molested a child: You can't do it.

quote:
I would rather err on the side of caution

Caution tells us that the climate changes and we can't establish a definitive cause. Caution would have us reject wholesale the assertions of AGW advocates and focus on adapting to changing climate instead of adapting to change the climate.


By HotFoot on 4/25/2010 9:15:34 PM , Rating: 2
I'm in agreement with you. And a bankrupt economy will be in no shape to take action on environmental issues should more arise.


By SPOOFE on 4/25/2010 10:08:45 PM , Rating: 3
An excellent point, and just goes to show how important it is to get a clear picture of our climate's behavior without politics or opportunists gumming up the works. IF the planet's climate is changing according to a natural rhythm that we can't possibly or practically affect, the attempts to "stop" it would only leave us less capable of adjusting to the inevitable.


By porkpie on 4/23/2010 9:44:19 PM , Rating: 3
" For instance last month was the warmest March on record for average global surface temperatures"

Read your link. For land temperatures, it was only the fourth warmest. Ocean temps were the warmest, but that temperature record is only reliable back to the start of satellite monitoring.


By whiskerwill on 4/24/2010 4:47:06 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
our article doesn't provide an argument against global warming, it just takes a snipe at people that do.
You say that like its a bad thing.

Personally I've read about a thousand articles that didn't do anything but "take a swipe" at people who didn't believe in global warming. If you want to run with the wolves, don't complain of sore feet.


By invidious on 4/23/2010 4:30:05 PM , Rating: 5
Yes, only AWG believers are allowed to look at a small subset of data and make sweeping conclusions based on it. How dare you stoop to their level.


By SPOOFE on 4/23/2010 5:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can't look at one spot and come to a conclusion

Yes, you can. You can come to a conclusion about that one spot. A lot of the article anticipates claims from the nebulously defined "other side", and there is absolutely nothing wrong with anticipating contesting points in a debate.

If this piece of data existed in a vacuum, it wouldn't amount to much. However, it exists alongside a large number of other bits of similarly focused data. This is not an issue where a single "silver bullet" data point will refute "the whole thing". This is an issue with lots of little bits of data, correlated and asserted to paint a large picture. Refuting the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis, by the very nature of the hypothesis, requires an equal number of small refutations in return.


By porkpie on 4/23/2010 6:50:44 PM , Rating: 5
"You can't look at one spot and come to a conclusion"

But this isn't just any random spot. It is (by the original GW theory) the one spot on earth that would warm the most. By basic GCM results, the poles were supposed to be warming almost 3X faster than the rest of the world. The fact that Antarctica is cooling is a major burr in the theory (though as Andrews points out, they've cooked up a few explanations to try to work around it).

It was also supposed to be the one spot we could least afford to have warm (due to the threat of SLR (sea level rise). And since the north pole doesn't affect sea level, the warmists are left pointing fingers at Greenland as being the sole cause of calamity.


By ClownPuncher on 4/23/2010 7:27:01 PM , Rating: 1
Greenland and Vancouver, effing winter Olympics had manufactured snow *shakes fist


By masterallan on 4/23/2010 4:20:40 PM , Rating: 3
I've worked for the USAP, United States Antarctic Program, for many years. As a person that has lived and worked in Antarctica any stories covering news about the continent attracts my attention. The story about Vostok is interesting in how it contrasts my own experiences earlier this year. Back in January at McMurdo Station, 800 miles away, this summer was unlike any from years past. Temperatures peaking at 6c and open water within walking distance to the edge of the Ross Ice Shelf. The ice always thins and breaks apart every January but this year you could sail a yacht without even a strengthened hull. First time I've seen orca whales swimming the sound. Just another example of wild temperature extremes occurring in both the far north and south.


By mandrews on 4/23/2010 4:35:55 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The story about Vostok is interesting in how it contrasts my own experiences earlier this year.

Indeed, I believe your example and the one offered in this piece illustrate the folly of taking individual events out of context.

That's the core problem with current warming theory -- it's largely based on models from hand-picked data that the supports the authors' conclusions. That's a poor way to conduct scientific research, particularly research that's being used to formulate expensive policy decsions.


By mandrews on 4/23/2010 5:03:31 PM , Rating: 2
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.

Humorous rhetoric, but I'm not assaulting anything.

There's no need to attack warming theory, it's far too weak for that. Current models can hardly match a select set of current global data, let alone predict true worldwide temperatures a month or year from now.

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.


By knutjb on 4/25/2010 12:11:14 PM , Rating: 2
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.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/seaicemi...
quote:
Satellite observations have been tremendously valuable in identifying these changes, but can’t tell us what’s going on beneath the ice.
http://pigiceshelf.nasa.gov/
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.
http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-no...

The problem you point out
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.
is that theories are not fact but are merely an idea based on a series of observations as shown in NASAs recognition that satellite data can be VERY misleading on its own.

The single biggest problem with the GW argument is they refuse to acknowledge the limits of what the sources of the data provide, i.e. satellites, from 79, measure surface area but not depth or density, painting an inaccurate picture that HAS been used as the evidence of dire consequences to befall us soon.

As the Iceland volcano shows is that models are merely ideas, like GW theories, that we should be validating against what is actually happening. The patterns of the volcano model did not match the what nature did. Unfortunately, rather than taking a scientific approach, many have proclaimed it, the GW model, as the gospel truth that we must heed. Like Al Gore said the time for debate is over...


By gamerk2 on 4/26/2010 10:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
http://www.news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-no...


Not entirely; the full story is that while the ice sheets are indeed getting THICKER, they are also receeding lengthwise. In short, they are growing in one demension, and shrinking in another. Their total mass, however, is on the downswing, proving that as a whole, those ice sheets are indeed shrinking.

And again, in regards to the volcano, weather systems are increadibly complex systems to calculate, due to all the various factors involved. Increase wind speed by just 1 MPH, and you have a totally different system. 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.

And as for lack of evidence for GW, i take it you also don't belive that simple plant life (algae) is responsable for making ~35% of our atmosphere Oxeygen? Over time, profound changes to the planets atmosphere are possible, and CO2 is more or less proven to have the effect of blocking in heat. Heck, the entire planet of Venus is a perfect example of runaway global warming due to a CO2 atmosphere! To argue humans have no effect on the planets atmosphere is downright ignornat in my mind.


By SPOOFE on 4/26/2010 2:54:49 PM , Rating: 2
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.

If the predicted outcome was incorrect, that means the hypothesis was incorrect. Which means we shouldn't be passing ANY potentially expensive legislation, or binding ourselves to potentially crippling Kyoto treaties, that are based on that hypothesis.


By JediJeb on 4/26/2010 4:01:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually Venus is a poor model for that since there the atmosphere is very high in sulfuric acid content where here it is not. Not to mention how much closer it is to the sun than the Earth is. If the only difference in the atmosphere between Venus and Earth was the CO2 levels then you might have a valid point, but to compare that one difference while ignoring all the other differences makes the assumption a very poor generalization at best. For instance I could argue the opposite because the atmosphere on Mars is 95% CO2, therefore increases in CO2 cause global cooling not warming since Mars if far colder than Earth.

Picking one variable alone gets both sides of the GW argument in trouble, and is why most theories are off base. There are just too many variables to be placed into the models that we know nothing about yet to make any kind of accurate assumptions.


By knutjb on 4/26/2010 7:10:40 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with your argument is that I am saying the GW MODELS have been inaccurate just like the patterns from the Iceland Volcano DID NOT even come close to the predictions.

Early GW fear mongering was based solely on the massive shrinkage of the surface area, from the satellites. Well while it is changing it is not the vast meltdown the MODELS predicted.

So, do better research and not the kind of tripe that became Climate Gate. Does it seem odd to present potentially shattering material with having it checked by statistical experts? If all or some of the info is not available don't trust it but that's what GW promoters did.


By AssBall on 4/23/2010 7:45:37 PM , Rating: 3
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!


What so when someone agrees with You, You praise them for their faith? Yet if someone disagrees with your you spearhead a personal attack on their character instead of debating the argument at hand? Don't stop there, because they are clearly "assulting" your belief. Get more personal, and attack them by blaming them for something incorrect and unrelated! In this case, a hypocricy.

You just avoided the argument altogether and became reactively defensive, accusatory, and personal; A typical strategy of the uninformed and the radical. It doesn't really get us anywhere as far as science and debate are concerned though, does it?


By straycat74 on 4/23/2010 4:38:48 PM , Rating: 2
Big deal. When ManBearPig rides in on Oprah, sorry Orca, then we'll talk. Take your fear mongering elsewhere heathen!


By angryplayer on 4/23/2010 8:57:45 PM , Rating: 4
temperature extremes instead of general warming... TILT IN THE AXIS MAYBE?

Now can we get over this human-caused global warming s*** and go back advancing mankind?


By porkpie on 4/24/2010 6:31:54 PM , Rating: 4
" Back in January at McMurdo Station, 800 miles away, this summer was unlike any from years past"

That's the McMurdo Station right next to Mt. Erebus, an active volcano? Think that might have something to do with warmer water temperatures?

Over the entire southern hemisphere as a whole, sea ice has been increasing since 1979, as long as we've been able to measure it.


By knutjb on 4/25/2010 12:15:29 PM , Rating: 3
You were very lucky to have worked there I had a neighbor who worked there a couple years ago. Its a fascinating place. What happened to the other side of the Antarctic shelf during this period?


By mandrews on 4/23/2010 3:29:07 PM , Rating: 2
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.

Err... perhaps you missed the two examples of theories that have been invented after the fact to try to explain away polar cooling.

To recap, since your reading comprehension appears substandard, one theory is that ozone depletion is somehow causing cooling, while another speculates that the cooling doesn't exist at all; because if you invent new past temperatures (that were not physically measured) and compare them to current temperatures, it's actually gotten "warmer" (flawless "logic", right?).

Such theories, in my humble opinion, are little more than lipstick on a pig. And I would not be surprised at all if AGW advocates turn to the recent volcanic activity as yet another in a long line of excuses to try to explain away the inconsistencies of a poor theory.

quote:
BTW, AGW deniers have abused children in the past, and will again in the future. Won't someone think of the children?

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?


By mandrews on 4/23/2010 4:20:23 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
It says you have poor reading comprehension skills, since I neither made anything up nor attributed it to you.

Incorrect. You took my serious observation (that AGW proponents might leverage the VEI issue) based on past actions (past remodeling to fit cooling trends) and made a wild statement about child abuse, likening my statement to your preposterous one.

I think it was obvious what you tried to do and I don't think many people were fooled by it.

My reading comprehension is quite sufficient, I think you need to learn to base you arguments on facts, not misdirection.


By BBeltrami on 4/25/2010 9:39:41 AM , Rating: 2
Personally I'd like to thank you for your posts. You seem to be honest and open about your faith and willingness to eradicate differing opinions by any means. Huzzah!

Problem is, you are obvious and vulgar and a poor spokesman for your "side". Your inability to apply logic isn't intelligent, witty or humorous. It's sociopathic.

Like virtually all AGW advocates, you do not engage in anything resembling debate or discussion. You use misdirection, deceit and personal attacks. Your behavior reinforces the OP's point about the nature of the debate in the first place: This isn't a debate, it's a war.

What's next? Will you parrot the latest defensive tactic of the alarmists, straight from the head of the IPCC: "If you don't believe, we're not giving you our data. Go do some research of your own and refute our findings." What do you call that? Scientific Method 2.0?

I think you're right. Most of the audience understands exactly what you're really saying.


By invidious on 4/23/2010 5:27:19 PM , Rating: 2
100% of them can be said about warming believers as well.

If the data is as truly as mixed as this guy claims then how does that support warming? It still suggests that warming theory is wrong by showing that localized/short term data does not correlate to a global trend.


By SPOOFE on 4/23/2010 6:31:27 PM , Rating: 5
Your statement suggests that you (like many of the AGW faithful) don't understand "burden of proof".

It's completely appropriate to have out-of-context rebuttals of individual points of a larger assertion. That is how a hypothesis comprised of many small data points gets rebutted.

The problem is you assume that those arguing against AGW have an equal (or even higher!) burden of proof than those supporting AGW, when it's quite the opposite. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and right now, the best pile of evidence supporting AGW is circumstantial, full of holes, and rife with doubts. If the rebuttals to the hypothesis seem spotty, it just might be because the hypothesis itself is spotty.


By porkpie on 4/23/2010 6:56:02 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the basic theory is pretty sound. Problem is, the "basic theory" is just that CO2 causes a very minor amount of warming.

What's full of holes is the idea that CO2 causes enough warming to cause a catastrophe...or even real problems. Where I live, it varies from 10 to 90 degrees every year. A century from now, it might vary from 11 to 91 degrees (if you work off the actual effect of CO2) or 14 to 94 degrees, if you accept the IPCC's ridiculous ideas of unproven positive feedbacks.

Either way -- big deal.

Yes, it would mean a very small increase in "heat-related events". But it would mean a corresponding decrease in cold-related events...and even today, we still have a lot more of those than we do heat.


By porkpie on 4/24/2010 10:45:42 AM , Rating: 4
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
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". 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".

That error gives an insanely high value for CO2, and one they've been continually forced to downgrade since. The value is still too high, and the evidence of that is the fact we've seen no statistically measurable warming over the past 15 years, despite the highest CO2 emissions in all history.


By porkpie on 4/24/2010 1:57:22 PM , Rating: 3
This is wrong on so many points, it is likely futile to reply. Still, hope springs eternal to the human breast. Shall we begin?

"Climate sensitivity has been estimated for more than a century"

The term "sensitivity" is meaningless by itself. You can only have sensitivity in terms of a certain variable . A century ago the only calculations we were doing were simple black body radiative budgets. Arrhenius aside, CO2 wasn't considered to be capable of climate change until the 1960s, when simulations suggested that, despite the saturation issue, CO2 could still influence surface temperatures.

"It is being estimated either using empirical methods (i.e. from observations) or from radiative transfer computation"

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. It's an assumption with no evidence, other than the "we can't think of anything better" approach. It's also an assumption that is contradicted by the paleoclimatic record, which shows climate has strong negative feedbacks, rather than positive.

" Similarly, radiative transfer models are tested for their ability to reproduce paleo-climate data, like those from the Last Glacial Maximum "

Unfortunately, current GCMs cannot reproduce known climate shifts like this. The changes in solar insolation from Milankovitch-based orbital shifts are far too small. 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.

"While part of the planet goes from noon to 4 pm every day, you seem to forget that another part goes toward noonduring the same time"

And you seem to forget that, in that brief four hour span, massive amounts of heat are not being transferred over the entire planet. It warms from 12-4pm in Moscow not because the sun is still rising in Paris, but because of thermal inertia. The planet has centuries worth of thermal inertia stored in the massive heat reservoirs of the oceans. This is yet another reason the IPCC's "evidence-based" sensitivity calculations are flawed. In the absence of any new change in forcings, the planet could
easily take 200+ years to fully stabilize in temperature.


By SPOOFE on 4/24/2010 3:08:41 PM , Rating: 2
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.

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.


By SPOOFE on 4/24/2010 4:27:58 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What Vostok measurements?

The 1-day low you seem so fond of mentioning.

quote:
Did you only see them?

I didn't feel 'em up, if that's what you mean. I'm a gentleman.

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.

Only insofar as there's a new low where popular hypotheses about a warming trend insists there should be a high, 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:
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:

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.

Anyway, your graph does not at all support anthropogenic global warming; compared to a proper geological fingerprint of pre-industrial climate patterns, 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:
Good luck with your "minute bits" gathering ....

Thank you! It's been a very exciting and fulfilling endeavor ever since I took a careful look at the data and changed my mind about the AGW hypotheses. I can't wait until you get to enjoy an exciting and fulfilling endeavor of your own, once you make a similar examination of the full body of evidence.

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.

And this is where you fail to understand the burden of proof. The AGW hypothesis states that man's industry is causing the climate to change. Observations of the climate changing do NOT support the AGW hypothesis, as we've observed similar climate changes prior to the cause in the AGW hypothesis. In other words, the hypothesis predicted Vostok would get nothing but warmer. It got colder. 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.


By porkpie on 4/24/2010 11:17:58 PM , Rating: 2
Sigh, Antarctica is cooling. Why are you trying to dispute the obvious?

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. "

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1664357/a...


By SPOOFE on 4/25/2010 2:38:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Wrong, there is no climate model that projects the daily temperatures at Vostok.

I didn't say "climate model", I referred to "popular hypotheses": Manipulating public perception of the issue is far more important than developing an accurate model, because it is the former that allows major players pushing AGW to make their money.

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.)

And if it were just 1 day in 1 location, you might have a point. But Vostok is just one of many locations, observed on one of many days. Himalayan glaciers? Polar bears that AREN'T in danger after all? The Ural tree ring data? The behavior of water in the upper atmosphere mitigating CO2 warming? These are all related contentions to prevailing AGW hypotheses, all are individual data points, and all support each other in opening major holes in the assertions of the AGW faithful.

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".

Your clarification just makes your initial confusing sentence even more confusing. Might I suggest that it is you that lacks clues, and not I? Doesn't it say volumes about the lack of substance in your argument when you have to resort to insisting I don't know what a word means?

quote:
Not only you suck at basic maths, but also at logic or basic comprehension.

If that were true, I wouldn't be beating you right now with logic and 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.

Uh, whether it is natural or anthropogenic is the ONLY relevant point to the overarching debate. If you want to CHANGE the focus of the debate to make it more suitable to your humble ability to argue a point, I understand, as you seem incapable of debating anything salient.

quote:
That's the one you can compare to models, not a 1 day temperature measurements at Vostok.

We should be using ALL the data, not cherry-picked data that only shows a preconcluded story.

quote:
Not only you use imaginary "bits" in your argument, but you also reply to imaginary arguments.

Just because you are ignorant about the information available, that doesn't mean it's "imaginary". It's very real, just like your inability to maintain salience.

quote:
Don't flatter yourself ... it is pretty clear that you have never taken a careful look at any data.

Except I did. What makes you think I didn't? The fact that I know more than you about this issue?

quote:
It always gets colder when moving toward in winter.

Not always.

quote:
The question is, is there a long term cooling trend there?

I don't recall that ever being the question. I thought the question was, "Is man causing the planet to warm up?" After all, that was the question referenced in the article that you took such umbrage with.

quote:
Obviously you don't know because you don't even know what the data are ... but worse, you don't care.

I don't care about the silly little fictions invented by small-minded buffoons like you. But I notice that in this latest post you've shifted the focus from the data to me, repeating over and over what I don't know despite the fact I've already demonstrated a greater knowledge in this field than you. Stop talking about me, if you think you've got such solid ground to stand on.

quote:
I can't wait, it sounds exciting ! People jumping out of the windows and all ...

Did you read the article or not? Are you going to retract your words if AGW advocates start making alterations to their popular notions in the near future? I'd like to think so, though your behavior indicates you'll continue to embrace your fantatical devotion to your faith and personally attack - as you've done to me - those that present solid and internally consistent arguments against your faith. I'm sorry you're a frightened and ignorant little child, but some day - I hope - you will look back and see how I'm trying to help you be less unintelligent.


By porkpie on 4/25/2010 9:03:24 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
let's say, global anomaly measured by satellite as computed by notorious AGW skeptics:

http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH...
Oops! You've linked to troposphere temperatures, not surface temperatures.

Surface temperatures have declined since 2001. Take a look at a dataset like HADCrut3.

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:

http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/glo...

Unlike the surface temp datasets, sea ice area is a figure much harder to play statistical games with.


By jbartabas on 4/26/2010 12:06:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oops! You've linked to troposphere temperatures, not surface temperatures.


Wrong. I have not linked to a graph of temperatures, but to a graph of temperature anomalies . Both trends in surface and lower troposphere anomalies are correlated as you can see there:

quote:
Surface temperatures have declined since 2001. Take a look at a dataset like HADCrut3.


They have not declined since 2001, there is no statistically significant trend. But let's not even get into statistics that goes well above your head, let's play your little sea ice game of comparing two end point (latest available data for HADCrut3 in Feb):

Global anomaly in 2001: 0.286
Global anomaly in 2010: 0.460

Ooops, it's warmer in 2010, so that's because there is a warming trend since 2001! (hint: no, it does not work like that ...)

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:


You can't even read your own linked graph (again, let's play the end point game):

Sea ice anomaly in 1979: ~ +1 Million sq. km.
Sea ice anomaly in 2010: ~ 0

It has decreased from 1979 to 2010, therefore there is a decreasing trend ! (hint#2 : no, it still does not work like that ...)


By jbartabas on 4/26/2010 1:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oops! You've linked to troposphere temperatures, not surface temperatures.


Wrong. I have not linked to a graph of temperatures, but to a graph of temperature anomalies .

Both trends in surface and lower troposphere anomalies are related:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1...

Actually, you will note that the lower troposphere trend is less pronounced than the surface one, because the higher layers of the atmosphere warm less than the surface and lower layers. If you look even higher in the atmosphere, in the stratosphere, the trend is even opposite (but that is not relevant to the point here).

Therefore, if you want to use the surface trends, be my guest, they will be even larger than those from satellite ... I just thought that "skeptics" preferred to use satellite data.

quote:
Surface temperatures have declined since 2001. Take a look at a dataset like HADCrut3.


They have not declined since 2001, at least there is no statistically significant cooling, as you probably have read in the interview of Jones that you like to refer to on so many occasions.

But if you prefer to use end points, instead of trends, as you did with your sea ice comment (see below), let's look at data for 2001 and 2010 (latest available data for HADCrut3 in Feb, but Jan would do as well):

Global anomaly in 2001: 0.286
Global anomaly in 2010: 0.460

It's warmer in 2010, so that must be because there is a warming trend since 2001! Hint: no, it does not work like that ... As you have mentioned earlier, one can actually compute a "cooling trend" from 2001:

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2...

The only problem with that trend is that it is not statistically significant . The variability of the data makes the computed slope very uncertain, at least as uncertain as the positive trend obtained from the data since 1995 (see the data there):

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1...

For some reasons though, you like to mention that there has been no "statistically significant warming since 1995" (as Jones did), but yet like to mention a cooling since 2001 (while Jones and the data tell that there is no statistically significant trend either).

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:


You should read the graph that you've linked to again. If one look at the end points like you did, namely at the sea ice area anomaly in 1979 and the anomaly now, one finds:

Sea ice anomaly in 1979: ~ +1 Million sq. km.
Sea ice anomaly in 2010: ~ 0

It has decreased from 1979 to 2010, therefore there must be a decreasing trend ! Hint #2 : no, it still does not work like that. I'll let you compute the trend and the statistical significance if you'd like...


You Better Be Right
By mgilbert on 4/24/10, Rating: -1
RE: You Better Be Right
By SPOOFE on 4/24/2010 6:37:29 PM , Rating: 2
Global warming does exist. 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.

IF the warming we witness is an artifact of normal planetary fluctuations as viewed over proper geological time scales, the best we can do is adapt to the climate changes; the notion that we can "stop" them, as per numerous pieces of potentially, hideously expensive legislation, would evaporate, and thus would any money being made over climate scares, as well.


RE: You Better Be Right
By porkpie on 4/24/2010 7:02:34 PM , Rating: 3
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.
The even bigger debate is whether a very slightly warmer world is going to be anything but good news for us. A warmer more mild climate, longer growing seasons, less deaths and crop damage from freezing weather, etc, etc.

The "its gonna cause more hurricanes! tornadoes! earthquakes!" crowd has luckily pretty much all died out from their own idiocy.


RE: You Better Be Right
By JediJeb on 4/26/2010 2:55:42 PM , Rating: 3
The one historical fact that most global warming alarmist want to deny is that when the Medieval warming period happened peoples lives got better and civilization began to flourish.


“We do believe we have a moral responsibility to keep porn off the iPhone.” -- Steve Jobs









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki