Temperatures in eastern Antarctica are 70 degrees warmer than usual

[Lord of Planar]

65 degrees worth?



That's funny, LoP!

This looks like to me just a short term anomaly. Such data isn't available is only a few short years long, so we don't know what is normal. But their temperature record increases corresponds with the wind directions from the NE, E and N. That is consistent in their data, this 65 F above normal is just greater than previous warmer time from that wind direction.

I don't know where the meteorological station is located, but it seems to me it is most likely located where is is seeing heat from the settlement when the wind is blowing the right direction.

See my post here:

Three new studies say humans are not the cause of global warming

Link the source please. There is another thread claiming a 70 F above normal. The twit posted on twitter the -12.4 C on twitter for Concordia. This station has only been there since 2005, so we have no data before that showing what a long cycle high temperature can be. The record high at that...

debatepolitics.com

With this lnk, you can search past data. You will see most the warmer data corresponds with wind direction. Again, I assume it is measuring building heat when the wind is carrying warmth from the settlement. Just substitute year, month, day, and number of days in the link.

ano = year
mes = month
day = day
ndays = number of days

 

[Antiwar]

See my post here:

Maybe if you post that link a few more times ...
(hmmm, what to say?), someone will buy your unscientific scientific opinion.

 

[longview]

This looks like to me just a short term anomaly. Such data isn't available is only a few short years long, so we don't know what is normal. But their temperature record increases corresponds with the wind directions from the NE, E and N. That is consistent in their data, this 65 F above normal is just greater than previous warmer time from that wind direction.

I don't know where the meteorological station is located, but it seems to me it is most likely located where is is seeing heat from the settlement when the wind is blowing the right direction.

See my post here:

Three new studies say humans are not the cause of global warming

Link the source please. There is another thread claiming a 70 F above normal. The twit posted on twitter the -12.4 C on twitter for Concordia. This station has only been there since 2005, so we have no data before that showing what a long cycle high temperature can be. The record high at that...

debatepolitics.com

With this lnk, you can search past data. You will see most the warmer data corresponds with wind direction. Again, I assume it is measuring building heat when the wind is carrying warmth from the settlement. Just substitute year, month, day, and number of days in the link.

ano = year
mes = month
day = day
ndays = number of days

The first winter-over at Concordia

Left: Concordia station from the American mast (west). From left to right: a small drilling operation for winter water, construction equipment containers, the electric station next to the two towers of Concordia Station, the main summer camp (in the back), the large white tent of the drilling platform, the sleeping tents, the green AASTINO automated astronomy experiment and the wooden astronomy platforms.

If this is viewed from the west, then south would be to the right, and the AASTINO would be in the wind shadow of the main building in a
NE wind.

 

[Lord of Planar]

The first winter-over at Concordia

View attachment 67382768
If this is viewed from the west, then south would be to the right, and the AASTINO would be in the wind shadow of the main building in a
NE wind.

Yes, I do think the few days of extra temperture was just the sensing station seeing the building heat.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Maybe if you post that link a few more times ...
(hmmm, what to say?), someone will buy your unscientific scientific opinion.

Yes, what to say? It appears you have nothing yo offer but have to say something.

I'm sorry about that.

 

[Buzz]

This looks like to me just a short term anomaly. Such data isn't available is only a few short years long, so we don't know what is normal. But their temperature record increases corresponds with the wind directions from the NE, E and N. That is consistent in their data, this 65 F above normal is just greater than previous warmer time from that wind direction.

I don't know where the meteorological station is located, but it seems to me it is most likely located where is is seeing heat from the settlement when the wind is blowing the right direction.

See my post here:

Three new studies say humans are not the cause of global warming

Link the source please. There is another thread claiming a 70 F above normal. The twit posted on twitter the -12.4 C on twitter for Concordia. This station has only been there since 2005, so we have no data before that showing what a long cycle high temperature can be. The record high at that...

debatepolitics.com

With this lnk, you can search past data. You will see most the warmer data corresponds with wind direction. Again, I assume it is measuring building heat when the wind is carrying warmth from the settlement. Just substitute year, month, day, and number of days in the link.

ano = year
mes = month
day = day
ndays = number of days

OMG... this is just stupid wild assed speculation with a definite denialist bias!!

The weather station is located about 2 km due east of the main station so the wind directions are all wrong for the anomalous temps to be due to the Urban Heat Island. Besides... you have been shown science that says that UHI doesn't affect surrounding areas when it is windy because the heat energy is dispursed.

Oh... and ignore the warning that the page can't load Google maps correctly because it is. And I checked the location. It is correct. Just zoom out on the satellite view to see the direction of the main station.

And for the weather station to be warmed that much from waste heat that far away would mean the main station would have to be awfully wasteful. And that is not the case according to this FAQ:

How is the station heated ? The summer camp is heated partly by fuel stoves (in the sleeping tents) and by electric heaters. For Concordia a more efficient system has been devised: the heat coming from both the exhaust (20%) and the cooling of the power generator (80%) is recovered and transfered to a standard hydraulic system of pipes and heaters throughout the station. Thus no energy is lost. Remote science containers are heated electrically.

https://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/DomeCFAQ.html

And note that the anomalous temps were taken after the summer camp was no longer being used.

So, LoP... how does it feel to be proven wrong yet again??

 

[Lord of Planar]

OMG... this is just stupid wild assed speculation with a definite denialist bias!!

The weather station is located about 2 km due east of the main station so the wind directions are all wrong for the anomalous temps to be due to the Urban Heat Island. Besides... you have been shown science that says that UHI doesn't affect surrounding areas when it is windy because the heat energy is dispursed.

Oh... and ignore the warning that the page can't load Google maps correctly because it is. And I checked the location. It is correct. Just zoom out on the satellite view to see the direction of the main station.

And for the weather station to be warmed that much from waste heat that far away would mean the main station would have to be awfully wasteful. And that is not the case according to this FAQ:


https://www.gdargaud.net/Antarctica/DomeCFAQ.html

And note that the anomalous temps were taken after the summer camp was no longer being used.

So, LoP... how does it feel to be proven wrong yet again??

You are the one that is wrong. There is nothing at that location. Your link also says:

The elevation does not correspond with the estimated elevation (-9999 metres (-32805 feet) -- source Geonames) at that point. Either the location or the elevation (or both) are almost certain to be incorrect. Please use the 'send the updated information' link below to update the location or elevation. ​

They don't claim an accuracy either.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Global Cryosphere Watch - Station Information

globalcryospherewatch.org

 

[Lord of Planar]

So, LoP... how does it feel to be proven wrong yet again??

You are so funny. You don't know when you are wrong, or how badly. You make such silly assumptions without proper facts, and state them as fact.

You are just loving that D-K, aren't you?

Meanwhile, I say something like this when uncertain: "Yes, I do think the few days of extra temperature was just the sensing station seeing the building heat." Please notice, I am not claiming it as fact.

I have also said: "This looks like to me just a short term anomaly." Again, I am not stating this as a fact, because unlike you, I am not arrogant into thinking I know everything.

D-K is your friend, and it is hilarious.

The distance doesn't look like 2 km to me... Not according to the information I posted.

My God man... Your link even states the location is "almost certain to be incorrect."

My God man. Do you really not comprehend?

 

[Buzz]

You are the one that is wrong. There is nothing at that location. Your link also says:

The elevation does not correspond with the estimated elevation (-9999 metres (-32805 feet) -- source Geonames) at that point. Either the location or the elevation (or both) are almost certain to be incorrect. Please use the 'send the updated information' link below to update the location or elevation. ​

They don't claim an accuracy either.

That page also says this:

It is possible that this page will report a problem where no problem exists.

View attachment 67383027

Global Cryosphere Watch - Station Information

globalcryospherewatch.org

O.K...

So, it looks like Google is unable to accurately pinpoint specific coordinates in Antarctica. And you found a map of the Concordia station.

Good Job!!

But that doesn't change anything. If the map is accurate then the weather data and its wind directions do not support your SWAG that waste heat from the station is what caused the temperature anomaly. As a matter of fact the first 3 days of the warm spell the wind was blowing from directions other than from the station and it couldn't possibly have been waste heat from the station that caused the unusually warm temps. It wasn't till the fourth day that the wind was blowing in the direction that the waste heat could even affect the weather station and by then temps were starting to go back down again.
.

 

[Buzz]

You are so funny. You don't know when you are wrong, or how badly. You make such silly assumptions without proper facts, and state them as fact.

But I am not wrong except for maybe where the weather stations are located and that would be Google's fault. And you have yet to show that I am wrong about anything else. You don't even address the fact that the Concordia station doesn't put off enough waste heat to affect the temperatures as much as what was measured. Or that there is peer-reviewed and published science that says when the wind blows that UHI effects are not able to significantly affect nearby weather stations.

You are just loving that D-K, aren't you?

You're the one who is arguing based on nothing but a wild assed guess.

Meanwhile, I say something like this when uncertain: "Yes, I do think the few days of extra temperature was just the sensing station seeing the building heat." Please notice, I am not claiming it as fact.

I have also said: "This looks like to me just a short term anomaly." Again, I am not stating this as a fact, because unlike you, I am not arrogant into thinking I know everything.

Oh... so you are going with the weasel words defense again??

It's so funny how you accuse the IPCC of dishonesty when they use weasel words but you have no shame when you do the same thing. Actually, what you do is far worse.

D-K is your friend, and it is hilarious.

Says the guy who constantly gets his facts wrong.

The distance doesn't look like 2 km to me... Not according to the information I posted.

From that website long found:

Personally I go out at least once a day for the weather balloon launches, staying no more than a few minutes. Unless there's some problem at my experimental container or at the weather station, in which case it's a 2km walk.

My God man... Your link even states the location is "almost certain to be incorrect."

It also stated that it could be correct. Cherry-pick much?

My God man. Do you really not comprehend?

I comprehend far better than you ever will.

 

[Lord of Planar]

That page also says this:


O.K...

So, it looks like Google is unable to accurately pinpoint specific coordinates in Antarctica. And you found a map of the Concordia station.

Good Job!!

But that doesn't change anything. If the map is accurate then the weather data and its wind directions do not support your SWAG that waste heat from the station is what caused the temperature anomaly. As a matter of fact the first 3 days of the warm spell the wind was blowing from directions other than from the station and it couldn't possibly have been waste heat from the station that caused the unusually warm temps. It wasn't till the fourth day that the wind was blowing in the direction that the waste heat could even affect the weather station and by then temps were starting to go back down again.
.

I noticed the direction as well. Maybe they at times have vehicles idling near the station. The point is, we don't know the facts other than what the temperture monitering equipment recorded. The fact is there is no evidence the extra heat is climate related altered by man. It might however be cause by the immediate activities of man.

Can you tell us definitively what it is caused by?

 

[Lord of Planar]

But I am not wrong except for maybe where the weather stations are located and that would be Google's fault. And you have yet to show that I am wrong about anything else. You don't even address the fact that the Concordia station doesn't put off enough waste heat to affect the temperatures as much as what was measured. Or that there is peer-reviewed and published science that says when the wind blows that UHI effects are not able to significantly affect nearby weather stations.

Not wrong. You were entirely wrong. You choose a source that even says the location they give is questionable, making the claim I am wrong because the monitoring equipment was far away.

Why can't you have the dignity to admit when you are wrong? Why are you blaming other for your misinterpretation of accuracy, when again, they specifically stated the location was likely in error?

My God man. Are you really blind to the facts of your own fallacies?

You're the one who is arguing based on nothing but a wild assed guess.

Yet, I stated it as opinion. Not fact.

Oh... so you are going with the weasel words defense again??

It's so funny how you accuse the IPCC of dishonesty when they use weasel words but you have no shame when you do the same thing. Actually, what you do is far worse.

Interpret it as you like. I'm not trying to state it as fact. I am not one like your who misinterprets the words. I am not intentionally trying to misrepresent things. My words are to indicate the uncertainty. Not to force an assumption.

Says the guy who constantly gets his facts wrong.

From that website long found:

That is a good size site. It's is a little over 1 km from the summer buildings to the temperature sensors there, by the map I posted. But there are closer buildings. This link and quote is not a correct validation to claim I am wrong. The person there said it was that distance. Did he measure it? A walk like that might easily feel a greater distance than it actually is, at those very cold temperatures, wearing so much bulk in clothing.

This again, is rather subjective, and doesn't prove squat.

It also stated that it could be correct. Cherry-pick much?

I comprehend far better than you ever will.

Yet, you don't realize your opinions and interpretations don't prove me wrong.

 

[bluesmoke]

Typical know nothing liberal. Just because you are happy to be willfully ignorant does mean that everyone else is.

You have also made a claim with nothing to back it up yet you call me lazy.

The fact is scientific papers are not written in crayon so you are going to have trouble reading any evidence I present.

You can't produce the evidence to back up what you say. Therefore, your claim is unfounded. The burden of proof is on you, the claim maker. That's basic debate process. If you can't follow rudimentary debate procedure, see you on another thread.

 

[Lord of Planar]

You can't produce the evidence to back up what you say. Therefore, your claim is unfounded. The burden of proof is on you, the claim maker. That's basic debate process. If you can't follow rudimentary debate procedure, see you on another thread.

The burden of proof is on you guys claiming AGW is as bad as claimed.

 

[longview]

You can't produce the evidence to back up what you say. Therefore, your claim is unfounded. The burden of proof is on you, the claim maker. That's basic debate process. If you can't follow rudimentary debate procedure, see you on another thread.

When we look at the claims of catastrophic AGW, where a doubling of the CO2 level produces
warming of 3C or greater, there is almost no evidence that the prediction is correct.
Let's look at the basics for example.
Almost everyone agrees that doubling the CO2 level will cause forcing of about 3.71 W m-2,
and that would cause total forcing warming of ~1.1C.
The catastrophic AGW predictions believe that the 1.1 C will be amplified through climate feedbacks to produce
3C or greater of total warming, a feedback factor of 2.72.
The problem with this concept is that, the climate feedbacks cannot tell the difference between warming caused by CO2,
and warming caused by anything else, and if such a high feedback factor existed, it would be clearly visible
within the instrument record.
An example would be that the .28C of warming that happened before 1950, would need to be amplified into
.28C X 2.72 = .76C of warming post 1950, but that would leave little room for the known ~.66C of forcing warming since 1950.
The numbers simply do not add up for such a high feedback factor, and all the handwaving and denial in the world,
cannot produce data where none exists!

 

[Buzz]

Maybe they at times have vehicles idling near the station.

Vehicles idling near the station??



There are several problems with this new SWAG of yours.

There is also another weather station in the area maintained by the US. And it shows similar temp readings.

So... for your new stupid wild assed guess to be true then one or more people would have had to strategically place two vehicles right next to both weather stations and let them run idling for a full week with occasional adjustments in position to account for changes in wind direction. But the thing that makes this almost impossible is the fact that vehicles almost never start in -50C weather.

Can you tell us definitively what it is caused by?

I think we can pretty much definitively say that the temperature anomaly wasn't from any human-produced waste heat.

 

[Buzz]

You were entirely wrong.

This is just another pathetic lie. I was wrong about one thing and not everything. Why do you insist on lying about what I say?

Why can't you have the dignity to admit when you are wrong?

I admitted I was wrong about the location of the station. And just because I was wrong about that doesn't make everything else I said wrong.

Why are you blaming other for your misinterpretation of accuracy, when again, they specifically stated the location was likely in error?

The site also said it might be correct. Stop cherry-picking what the site said.

Yet, I stated it as opinion. Not fact.


Interpret it as you like. I'm not trying to state it as fact. I am not one like your who misinterprets the words. I am not intentionally trying to misrepresent things. My words are to indicate the uncertainty. Not to force an assumption.

And that is what is wrong with many of the things you say. They are based on your biased opinion more than any real science or data.

 

[ecofarm]

When we look at the claims of catastrophic AGW, where a doubling of the CO2 level produces
warming of 3C or greater, there is almost no evidence that the prediction is correct.
Let's look at the basics for example.
Almost everyone agrees that doubling the CO2 level will cause forcing of about 3.71 W m-2,
and that would cause total forcing warming of ~1.1C.
The catastrophic AGW predictions believe that the 1.1 C will be amplified through climate feedbacks to produce
3C or greater of total warming, a feedback factor of 2.72.
The problem with this concept is that, the climate feedbacks cannot tell the difference between warming caused by CO2,
and warming caused by anything else, and if such a high feedback factor existed, it would be clearly visible
within the instrument record.
An example would be that the .28C of warming that happened before 1950, would need to be amplified into
.28C X 2.72 = .76C of warming post 1950, but that would leave little room for the known ~.66C of forcing warming since 1950.
The numbers simply do not add up for such a high feedback factor, and all the handwaving and denial in the world,
cannot produce data where none exists!

You know that's gibberish, don't you. Everyone else can tell just by looking at it. If you really had a clue what you were talking about, it wouldn't be in magic code.

 

[longview]

You know that's gibberish, don't you. Everyone else can tell just by looking at it. If you really had a clue what you were talking about, it wouldn't be in magic code.

Feel free to point out which of my statements are incorrect?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Buzz, your tripe doesn't matter. The fact that this is a one-time event for a few short days means it could be just about anything. My offering a possibility and offering the likelihood in my opinion, doesn't make me wrong, because I am not set in saying that was the cause. Until other possible explanations are shown to be incorrect, the fact stands that we don't know why.

You need to stop being obsessed with me. If you cannot offer anything better then do you think anybody cares?

I noticed your link doesn't show the data for that range of days, so why did you link it?

 

[Lord of Planar]

There are several possibilities, this is another possibility. A geomagnetic storm that disturbed the polar region, changing the winds, heat movement, etc. Do you think this would be impossible to have caused such disturbances?

2 geomagnetic storms will lash Earth today, but don't worry (too much)

Auroras could be seen as far south as Idaho and New York, according to NOAA.

www.livescience.com

The estimated 14 to 15 March is when the temperatures started rising. If several factors came into alignment, are you willing to claim this variable had no effect?

 

[Lord of Planar]

Back to post 14 also:

Consider this:

Both Lazzara and Meier said what happened in Antarctica is probably just a random weather event and not a sign of climate change. But if it happens again or repeatedly then it might be something to worry about and part of global warming, they said.​

same article I linked.

Not a sign of climate change!

 

[Lord of Planar]

There is also another weather station in the area maintained by the US. And it shows similar temp readings.

Why didn't you link the temperature data?

 

[Buzz]

Buzz, your tripe doesn't matter.

It does when It shows that your "opinion" is really just a stupid wild assed guess that pretty much can't be true.

The fact that this is a one-time event for a few short days means it could be just about anything.

Actually, it was about a week-long event. And it can't be just about anything. That is just dumb.

My offering a possibility and offering the likelihood in my opinion, doesn't make me wrong, because I am not set in saying that was the cause.

That's BS. You were not just offering a possibility. You stated several times that you assumed and believed that the temperature anomaly was caused by waste heat from buildings, construction, and then vehicles. And that is just obviously wrong.

Until other possible explanations are shown to be incorrect, the fact stands that we don't know why.

Wrong. Unless you can actually show some data that says it was some kind of heat island effect then it is safe to say that it was the weather.

You need to stop being obsessed with me. If you cannot offer anything better then do you think anybody cares?

I'm not obsessed with you. I am obsessed with denialist lies and misinformation. And if you didn't push so many denialist lies and misinformation then I wouldn't be having to prove you wrong all the time.

I noticed your link doesn't show the data for that range of days, so why did you link it?

Because there is a link for the data on the webpage.

There are several possibilities, this is another possibility. A geomagnetic storm that disturbed the polar region, changing the winds, heat movement, etc. Do you think this would be impossible to have caused such disturbances?

2 geomagnetic storms will lash Earth today, but don't worry (too much)

Auroras could be seen as far south as Idaho and New York, according to NOAA.

www.livescience.com

The estimated 14 to 15 March is when the temperatures started rising. If several factors came into alignment, are you willing to claim this variable had no effect?

Yeah... something that affected weather... and not any kind of heat island effect. I am o.k. with that being a possibility.

But that doesn't change the fact that your first assumptions were nothing but a SWAG.

Back to post 14 also:

Not a sign of climate change!

I never said that it was.

Why didn't you link the temperature data?

Yeah!! What am I thinking? I should have known that I need to hand feed you everything and that you would be unable or unwilling to read the website and find the data for yourself.

Here is the data. Just be aware that this link will not give the correct data in a couple of weeks. And that's why I left the data checking to the readers of my post. And there is too much data to quote it here.