BPSDBRick Hodgin of the MIT Methane fraud is at it again, this time with “Possible natural explanation found for West Antarctica’s warming.”
What he is trying to pull this time is to blame the recently documented warming of the Antarctic on a volcano eruption similar to one discovered to have occurred 2,300 years ago.
It stands to reason that if there is an active volcano in Antarctica, one capable of punching a hole through the ice sheet and spewing “a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards” over 23,000 km2 at some point, then it (and its nearby possibly as-of-yet-unidentified brothers) may well be the cause of a one degree Fahrenheit increase observable in the western section of Antarctica over the past 50 years.
It stands to reason? What kind of reasoning is that? I wonder what it is that he finds reasonable?
Is it the notion that there was a volcanic eruption in the last 50 years that spewed ash 12 km into the air and spread it over 23,000 km2, and we didn’t notice? is that what he finds reasonable?
Despite satellites, Antarctic research stations and expeditions? Everyone was looking the other way, were they?
Maybe it’s the notion that we can detect such an eruption that happened 2,300 years ago, but find no evidence of one that supposedly just occurred recently? Is that what he thinks is “reasonable”?
Or maybe, just maybe, he thinks it is entirely reasonable to imagine that this fictitious volcano(s) somehow magically caused a warming exactly in synch with the warming of the rest of the planet.
Further, that the effect of that volcano was to cause gradual increasing warming over decades after the eruption? obviously releasing more heat as more time passed since it’s eruption … is that the ‘reasonable’ part?
Well why not? If you are making up magic volcanoes you may as well go all of the way and give them properties that are the opposite of real volcanoes. Certainly makes as much sense as the rest.
So rather than accept the obvious explanation based on evidence that Antarctica is warming due to human caused climate change, just like the rest of the planet, Hodgin thinks it is “reasonable” to make up a magic volcano(s) that is invisible and has properties that are the opposite of real volcanoes.
It’s just too ridiculous for words.
Now obviously he does not think it is reasonable to imagine that a single volcano, even a super volcano, would have warmed the entire continent of Antarctica. So how does he deal with the fact that the evidence shows that the whole continent has been warming? Simple, he lies about it.
Also, if you look at the location of the warming, it is contained in the western region by the mountain range, indicating the warmer air comes from a local source and not a global phenomena to the entire continent.
He gives you the image without a legend so indeed it looks like the red zone is where the warming is. Of course the map with a legend tells a different story.
The Eastern Antarctic has not warmed as much as Western, hence the colour difference, but it has warmed.
I say that he lies because he claims both that the Eastern Antarctic isn’t warming, and an implicit claim is that he has at least looked at the work, presumably closely enough to comment on it. At least one of those is false, and possibly both are.
As if that were not bad enough, he even goes on:
“…there’s just too short a data set for us to be able to draw any conclusions as of yet. If we had 500 years worth of charts, then I might feel more comfortable with analysts pointing out trends.”
At least three things grossly wrong with this statement.
- Despite his statement, we do have more than 500 years worth of temperature data. What Hodgin is implying is that the only valid temperature data is the direct land based measurements, and that is just nonsense. Proxy measurements are different, but valid.
- I wonder what would be a sufficient data set for him? Clearly he is suggesting that we should base science on his level of uninformed comfort, or should it be everybody’s? Should we have polls? ie he gives no rational reason for what would constitute a sufficient data set, and why.
- Hodgin may not have a clue as to what is a sufficient data set to detect trends, but science does. In fact not only a clue, but a reasoned figure based on data as explained here (it is 30 years).
We are then treated to several completely irrelevant anecdotes, presumably to make the utterly trivial point that science does not know everything.
- Not knowing everything is not a synonym for not knowing anything;
- Listing things one doesn’t know in no way negates what you do know, especially when the examples are irrelevant;
- If you want to demonstrate that the knowledge about something is inadequate or uncertain, then talk about that thing and provide facts and evidence;
- Rambling on about irrelevant things is a tacit admission that you cannot demonstrate any problems with the actual subject, in which case why are you talking at all?
This sudden appearance of the Solar fable leads me to ask what happened to the fictitous super volcano? forgotten already? Apparently he cannot even keep straight which nonsense he is trying to push in the piece.
What’s curious, and typical of many Deniers, is that in Hodgin unquestionably accepts the science as it relates to various topics that come up. Apparently science is a credible source of information … unless it doesn’t suit you, in which case make things up and pretend they are as credible.
The whole thing is such a pathetically desperate clutching at any silliness to try and cast doubt on climate science that it is really more sad than anything.
In debunking the Methane fraud story I noted that “There is no way to know if Hodgin knew he was lying or is just a clueless twerp who didn’t know what he was talking about.”
I guess we have an answer, or at least a lot more evidence.
UPDATE: Commenter Jay Alt notes
The satellite that measures the skin temperatures of Antarctic ice (shown on your yellow/orange map) is accurate to tenths of a degree.
Any volcano activity would be localized and very obvious.
This doesn’t show up so volcanism can’t explain the rising in temperatures. (once again)
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 96 … still no evidence.