Quiz for the day. Can you spot the volcano? It is perhaps even easier to find than Waldo.

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/ANTARCTIC/TRENDS/IMAGES/annual.trend.1958-2002.gif

I found this post on another website and it made me laugh. I figured id repost it here so it can lighten the mood. while im neither a denier or alarmist. I do believe we as individuals should better or enviorment without destroying our economy. i mean come on i dont earn six figures and i dont think any of you want to be taxed up the you know what. lol. any one of you gonna donate your money to the cause you think is causing the world to warm up i dont think so unless it benifits you as a big right off.

Well, things will change for me this year. I am going from global warming non-believer to global warming believer. Last week during Christmas we had warmer than normal temperatures and that isn't good! It averaged 3 degrees warmer than normal and I said enough is enough. I can't have my children not seeing a white Christmas! What about my children's children? They will never hear the song, "I'm dreaming of a white Christmas". So what I am doing to be more "Green" this year is basically the same as the end of last year. I am holding my breath for 2 minutes a day, I am working my way up to 3 minutes. I installed an emissions control device on my car. A balloon on the tailpipe should stop all those harmful "GREENhouse gases". Funny thing is I am going through a lot of balloons everyday. I may try a weather balloon. Last thing I am doing is trying to keep my dog from flatulating which greatly increases CO2 and will kill every last one of us. So I installed a cork. She doesn't like it too much, but I explained to her how this will save the lives of billions of people. All this must be working because we are having record cold and snow again up here in the great white north and I even hear Florida may lose crops because of record cold down there! So if you think that one person can't make a difference, you're wrong. I did my part and now citrus farmers are losing crops. Hey why do they call it "green", when everything is frozen it's white!

Patrick,

Hate to rain on your parade, but all the known volcanoes are further north on the peninsula:

http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/region.cfm?rnum=19

Compare carefully:

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/ANTARCTIC/TRENDS/IMAGES/annual.trend.1958-2002.gif

The Seal Nunataks are the closest group to the center of the pink anomaly, and they're over 200 miles to the north of the anomaly's center. If you're referring to the undersea volcano discovered back in 2004, that volcano was discovered at the tip of the peninsula, about 400 miles away (hint: the orange area out on the fringe). The area discussed in the article at hand, just off Deception Island, is more than 300 miles north of the anomaly (again, out on the fringe of the anomaly). So unless you'd like to share a groundbreaking geologic discovery with us....

I think if it was really that easy to find a new volcano, geologists would have been all over it already. If you'd like to fly down to Antarctica and check for us, feel free. Keep us appraised.

It is starting to sound to me like this section on global warming will be converted to a global cooling section in the not so distant future. I say bring it on. Warm weather is boring. A colder future world would surely bring more excitement to the meteorological world. I can't see any of the weather buffs out there (myself included) disagreeing with that statement. Then again, do we really know what will happen? Perhaps not but I certainly know what I want to happen! Harold Olsen

Oceans occupy between 60-70% of the Earth's surface and we really know next to nothing about what is beneath the surface. There are many forces at work in determining climate on this planet with man and his carbon footprint being just one of those force, an probably in the overall scope of the forces, the carbon footprint is probably one of the least signifigant causative factors in creating change. Between the energy of the Sun and the Vulcanism of the Earth there are more than enough 'heat' generators to warm the place up, without regard to man's presence or absence. By the same token with a few changes in the senario, we could be heading towards the next Ice Age. As we have seen from the geological record of the Earth, it has vasilate between the extremes of heat and cold....all without the benefit of man's actions.

The louder noise levels of the last four decades may be the result of more hydrothermal vents as well. Nice to see yet again more evidence against AGW, even though they had to trot out the standard reference to global warming to get it published.

Here's a sound of Climate Change that wasn't mentioned:

"CHA-CHING" Right from your wallet to the UN and Al Gore's pockets!

Save the planet from hot air. MUZZLE AL GORE!!!!

Hi Travis,

The Antarctic Peninsula is part of the ring of fire which extends down the Andes Mountains to West Antarctica. It was formed by volcanism and tectonic movement, and is full of volcanoes. It primarily consists of volcanoes. Have a look at Google Earth. The fact that one particular volcano does not sit directly under the red spot is not particularly interesting to the discussion. The geology is hidden by thousands of feet of ice and the recent discovery of active volcanoes in the region is an indication of our limited knowledge. It is also believed by NASA that the West Antarctic ice sheet is underlain by several active volcanic centers which have caused ice loss.

It is irrational to believe that a single isolated spot on a narrow peninsula has been anomalously affected by CO2 relative to it's surroundings for thousands of miles. A serious scientist would look for a simple explanation first before jumping into the mindless trap of CO2 as the cause of all phenomenon.
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/ANTARCTIC/TRENDS/IMAGES/annual.trend.1958-2002.gif

I Think this is major but make up your own minds
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Pachauri_RK.html

It does seem kind of weird that there would be that much warming in that one spot. If it isn't volcanic activity, what could cause such a localized phenomena?

"Travis:
Patrick,
Hate to rain on your parade, but all the known volcanoes are further north on the peninsula:"

Travis, it says these are "NEW" "THAT NO ONE KNEW ABOUT BEFORE"

"there are new heat sources right off the coast of Deception Island that no one was aware of before."

As Ocean levels rise due to Global Warming this creates more head pressure on tetonic plates which will cause more underwater volcanos and seaquakes. The amount of pressure differential on the tetonic plates increases thus causing more slippage to occur. My "Tunnels" prevent this by keeeping the oceans regulated to a certain temperature and thus preventing sea level rise.

Travis,

There is Tertiary to Recent vulcanism on either side of this "hot spot" to which Patrick Henry refers. The volcanic activity is a result of back-arc spreading related to the subduction of the Scotia Plate beneath the Antarctic Plate and the recent disappearance of the Antarctic-Phoenix spreading center. Given that there is vulcanism on either side of the "hot spot" and the continuing subduction going on to the north, it is entirely possible that what we are seeing in the sea surface temperatures is a result of geothermal flux emanating from new magma surfacing beneath this area of the Antarctic Peninsula.

Not quite on this topic, but just a global warming question in general--I'd be interested in hearing people's answers from both sides of the debate. I personally don't believe we can predict anything with certainty, including weather and climate (proven over and over again looking at any forecast anywhere). From what I understand the general consensus is that the earth warmed 0.8 degrees F the last century. Every weather report I ever see for a locality reports highs and lows to the nearest full degree. I assume a high of 55 means it was between 54.5 and 55.49999... Therefore, that 55 is accurate to within 0.5 degrees either way assuming the thermometer is calibrated exactly. Now, I assume satellite data and modern technology can and do record temperatures more accurately than to the nearest degree. But how can anyone possibly say this about the thermometers in 1910? What grounds is there to reasonably believe that we know the global temperature to the nearest 1/10th of a degree 100 years ago? Can we guarantee a weather station in NY would measure the exact same temperature as a weather station from somewhere else in the world in the same environment back then? And if we could, did anyone record temperatures to more than the nearest degree? Even if all equipment was well calibrated and accurate back then, wouldn't we have at least a half degree margin of error at the existing weather stations? This isn't even taking into account that I'm sure there were many fewer stations 100 years ago and they were probably much more poorly monitored. I've read of methods they used in NY in the 1800s to record temperatures and they read the thermometer in Central Park at 8 am, 2 pm, 2 am, and 8 pm every day and whatever minimum and maximum they saw at those times, they recorded (that is hardly an accurate method). So, hopefully without mudslinging and accusations of heresy from the AGW crowd, I can get a reasonable explanation as to how comparing data from the beginning of last century to now isn't comparing apples and oranges. How can we reasonably determine warming going back more than 20 years or so which is when we starting calculating global temperatures with more accurate satellite readings? If we had readings that were 4 or 5 degrees different, that is one thing, but 0.8 degrees?

Chris,

The vast majority of GHCN temperature readings prior to 1950 are from stations which report only "mean temperature" and not high or low temperatures. I've always wondered how they can accurately calculate a mean, without accurate high and low data.

Obviously they can't and the data is flawed.

Off topic: This New Hampshire resident just voted for our next President of the United States...Mitt Romney. (I decided last night).

The negative effects of a man made globull warming are misleading and grossly exagerated.

How long before NY city is submerged? Any alarmists care to take a stab? What do your climate models predict for a time frame? Is the planet to chaotic to make an accurate prediction?

Paul,

I'm willing to admit if I'm wrong, but please re-post the link; when I open it, I got a "file not available" error. I need more than circumstantial evidence, though. So it's located along the ring of fire; can you show evidence of extreme warm anomalies above other known underwater volcanoes? That's a necessary step before you can use such a claim as evidence.

Patrick,

Why should it have been caused exclusively by CO2? Does that mean that the extreme cold anomaly located in the upper-left area of the map is caused by a massive anti-volcano? Or perhaps by a fantastic absence of CO2?

http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/ANTARCTIC/TRENDS/IMAGES/annual.trend.1958-2002.gif

I would personally assert that it is a random occurrence (to the extent that weather and ice-calving is random). The chart you reference ends in 2002. What's the more recent data say? Since you're a "serious scientist" I'm sure you're already asking yourself these questions.

Off topic: This New Hampshire resident just voted for our next President of the United States...Mitt Romney. (I decided last night).

No doubt. "This New Hampshire resident" also just demonstrated how much he cares about truth -- which is not much, if he voted for Romney. As a NH resident, he's close enough see Romney's lies first-hand.

I find it unsurprising that someone who cares so little about the truth that he votes for Romney is also a contrarian/denier.

Patrick,

Thanks for your response. I question how they came up with a mean also without maximums or minimums. It was probably something similar to the method I read about reading the temperature four times a day and taking the average.

It?s been awhile since I?ve done Calculus, but I do remember the principle behind Riemann sums and as the number of rectangles approaches infinity under a curve, you suddenly have an integral and the true average value of the function you?re looking at. The fewer rectangular sections under a curve the less accurate the estimation is, in general. Taking the max and min temperatures for the day or four readings for a day is doing exactly that?plotting the temperature curves and dividing them into 2 or 4 sections. Even dividing it into 24 sections, once an hour each day would greatly improve the accuracy.

I live in Long Island and remember a day last month where it snowed but the snow was riding in on the leading edge of a warm front. The temperatures for the day here went something like this:
From midnight to 2 PM (14 hours) the temperature hovered between 19 and 21 (we?ll call it an average of 20 to save space. From 2 to 9 PM the temperature started rising close to 2 degrees an hour until it reached 32F and the precipitation changed to rain. From 9 PM to midnight, the warm front plowed through and the temperature flew up to 44F (the high for the day). Using the max/min method for the average (which is really just assuming temperature always moves in something close to a perfect bell curve), the average for the day is 31.5F ((44+19)/2). Using the really old school method of reading temps at 2 AM, 8 AM, 2 PM and 8 PM, you?d get an average of about 22.5F ((20+20+20+30)/4). Using the hourly reading method you?d get around 24F for the average ((20*14) + (26*7) + 32 + 38 + 44)/24). Most likely this 24F is closest to the true mean you?d get if you integrated the temperature graph for the day. So we have one method (the max/min), which ends up 7.5 degrees off and another that ends up 1.5 degrees off.

I would like to know if the method pre-1950 of calculating mean temperature was consistent everywhere and if they used the max/min method anywhere or everywhere. Even if the temperature at a station almost always behaved perfectly so that (max + min)/2 is the true average except for say once a month it is off by 7.5 degrees as in the above example (not too far-fetched since this type of temperature change up and down occurs quite frequently when fronts pass through), you?d have a margin of error for the month of up to 0.25F either way, and that?s with the ridiculous assumption that 95%+ of the time the method worked perfectly! Fronts that cause temperature swings like this of 10-20 degrees over a few hours certainly come through here more often than once a month.

I?m not trying to prove or disprove global warming here, I?m just asking questions that should be asked and appropriately answered if supposedly scientifically-backed claims are being made. I am an aerospace software engineer and get asked a lot more difficult questions than this to prove that the software is running correctly. I think something that potentially drives earth-changing political policies should be held at least to that high of a standard.

Just how does AGW cause thermal vents from producing and belching out hot water, hot magma, CO2 and making noise? You want the EPA to demand quieter volcanoes???

Vince,
You may be right!
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Pachauri_RK.html
A guy who knows economics and whose country will be exempt from the Kyoto Protocols wants the US to lower its economic footprint. No wonder he has one of India's highest civilian awards that recognizes distinguished service to the nation.
Yep I’d say follow the money, you can’t be too far off.

Just how does AGW cause thermal vents from producing and belching out hot water, hot magma, CO2 and making noise? You want the EPA to demand quieter volcanoes???

Vince,
You may be right!
http://www.biographybase.com/biography/Pachauri_RK.html
A guy who knows economics and whose country will be exempt from the Kyoto Protocols wants the US to lower its economic footprint. No wonder he has one of India's highest civilian awards that recognizes distinguished service to the nation.
Yep I’d say follow the money, you can’t be too far off.

Travis,

Here is the link:

http://journals.cambridge.org/download.php?file=%2FANS%2FANS11_03%2FS0954102099000450a.pdf&code=d4a412403cd12b1b1d84a553e6b92ef1

If you still can't access it, Google on Beethoven Peninsula and look for "Lithostratigraphy of Miocene-Recent, alkaline volcanic fields in the Antarctic Peninsula and eastern Ellsworth Land" by J.L. Smellie (1999). (The link still doesn't work. You may try cutting and pasting the link or do the Google search.)

I need more than circumstantial evidence, though. So it's located along the ring of fire; can you show evidence of extreme warm anomalies above other known underwater volcanoes?

How does the largest SST and air temperature anomaly in the Antarctic region centered on a known volcanic terrane since the Jurassic qualify as circumstantial? I'm supposed to believe that this localized warming is a product of AGW? Talk about circumstantial!!

You tell me how AGW can warm only a small portion of this peninsula, ok? From the looks of the contouring, this looks pretty much like a single data point. Do you have any idea how this data was collected and where the dataset can be found? Patrick Henry?

BT,

You: I find it unsurprising that someone who cares so little about the truth that he votes for Romney is also a contrarian/denier.

Reply: This is coming from an AGW alarmist who wants Iran to have unfettered access to nuclear power, in order to HELP REDUCE emmissions that will lead us to a globull meltdown. Arming fundamentalist terrorists with nuclear power demonstrates a serious lack