UPDATE 1/25: Mr. Hays has has provided a follow up letter, posted at the bottom of this article. – Anthony
This letter below, reprinted with permission, is from Ross Hays. Ross was a CNN meteorologist for many years. He works for NASA at the Columbia Balloon Facility.
In that capacity he has spent much time in Antarctica.Ā He obviously can’t speak for his agency but can have an opinion which he shared with several people. It is printed below in entirety, exactly as he sent it to Eric Steig today, the lead author of the University of Washington paper highlighted in aĀ press release yesterday that claims there is a warming in Antarctica. There were some of the pronouncements made in the media, particularly to the Associated Press by Dr. Michael Mann, that marry that paper with “global warming”, even though no such claim was made in the press release about the scientific paper itself.
I agree with Ross Hays. In my opinion, this press release and subsequent media interviews were done for media attention. The timing is suspicious,Ā with the upcomingĀ Al Gore’s address to congress, he can now say: “We’ve now learned Antarctica is warming”. A Google News search shows about 530 articles on the UW press release in various media.
I ask my readers that share this opinion to consider writing factual letters to the editor (in your own words) or make online comments if any of these media outlets are near you. – Anthony
letter dated 1/22/09
Eric,
Let me first say that this is my own opinion and does not represent the agency I work for. I feel your study is absolutely wrong.
There are very few stations in Antarctica to begin with and only a hand full with 50 years of data. Satellite data is just approaching thirty years of available information.Ā In my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica the summer seasons have been getting colder. In the late 1980s helicopters were used to take our personnel to Williams Field from McMurdo Station due to the annual receding of the Ross Ice Shelf, but in the past few years the thaw has been limited and vehicles can continue to make the transition and drive on the ice. One climate note to pass along is December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station. In a synoptic perspective the cooler sea surface temperatures have kept the maritime storms farther offshore in the summer season and the colder more dense air has rolled from the South Pole to the ice shelf.
There was a paper presented at the AMS Conference in New Orleans last year noting over 70% of the continent was cooling due to the ozone hole. We launch balloons into the stratosphere and the anticyclone that develops over the South Pole has been displaced and slow to establish itself over the past five seasons. The pattern in the troposphere has reflected this trend with more maritime (warmer) air around the Antarctic Peninsula which is also where most of the automated weather stations are located for West Antarctica which will give you the average warmer readings and skew the data for all of West Antarctica.
With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage.
Sincerely,
Ross Hays
Follow up letter, sent 1/24 and posted on 1/25 with permission:
Anthony,
A prerequisite to going to work for the Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility was to pass an Antarctic physical. During the southern summer each year CSBF launches large (up to 40 million cubic feet) scientific balloons that orbit Antarctica for up to 42 days with scientific experiments. Most of the payloads are astrophysics, but scientific balloons discovered the ozone hole over Antarctica.
The meteorologist job is to do daily forecasts for our launch site at Williams Field near McMurodo Station on Ross Island. When campaigns are going on daily briefings are provided to personnel and a written summary is provided for daily situation reports sent to the Balloon Program Office at Goddard Space Center. We also monitor the stratospheric winds while the payloads are being readied to launch and to make sure the winds are in the correct direction and the balloon will stay over the continent. We also forecast payload termination and impact areas.
I have only done two tours on the Ice but have provided forecasts from Palestine, Texas on the years between after the balloon launches we take over forecasts for the payload and handle termination from our command center. I will be returning to the Ice in November.
My main problem with the study is the data sets. I know of only 4 stations for all of Antarctica that have fifty complete years of data. I am trying to find the exact number now. Most stations have been on and off in operation for a few seasons during field experiments. One of our retired meteorologists, Glenn Rosenberger was a US Navy meteorologist that did tours in Antarctica. He helped install the first automated weather stations on the continent: In conjunction with Stanford University, believe it was in 1978-1979 that 4 were put on the ice.Ā One was on Minna Bluff, one on the Plateau, one on the slope of Eribus.Ā They were powered by the RTG (radiological thermoelectric generators) and the I was the Radiological Officer for the command.Ā There is just not enough data to support the results in my opinion.
The discussion about the warming in West Antarctica is also questionable to me since the majority of stations with several years of data are on the Antarctic Peninsula, which is surround by warmer maritime air, and doesn’t give a good balance over the interior.
I hope this gives you some idea about me.
Sincerely,
Ross Hays
According to the Cryosphere Today, a huge chunk of ice disappeared overnight
off the coast of Labrador. I wonder where in cyberspace it ended up?
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=01&fd=21&fy=2009&sm=01&sd=22&sy=2009
When is the AGW agitprop going to stop?When the Glacial front gets to Cleveland?
I wonder if any Main Stream Media outlet will dare to publish this letter?
Congratulations to Ross Hays for his honesty and courage in the face of the “consensus”.
The following is posted as part of the environmental agenda on http://www.whitehouse.gov today. Here we go!
“Reduce our Greenhouse Gas Emissions 80 Percent by 2050
Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050. Make the U.S. a Leader on Climate Change”.
Something tells me that Mann is not overly concerned about this opinion.
It’s a fairly strong accusation to make that scientists are releasing their results purely for maximum media/political impact. Not a claim I’d want to make without significant evidence…
REPLY: I think the evidence is in the quotes made today by co-authors Michael Mann and Drew Shindell. While the scientific paper makes no attribution to global warming or GHG’s they do make those linkages in quotes to the Associated Press. If they had left the paper unconnected to this political issue of global warming, then I don’t think these kinds of opinions about media attention would be forming. – Anthony
Besides, Hays presents nothing more than anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely meaningless (“December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station”).
REPLY: Read carefully again. He presented a mechanism to explain the warming of west Antarctica. – Anthony
This latest work by Mann is just another stage prop for Gore’s next show before the Senate.
The authors know it is garbage, but it is not meant to be a scientific tool. It is a sales aid for AGW promoters.
Thanks for sharing this. My gut tells me this is the real story — though I am certainly no scientist.
After seeing the nature of the response to his work, perhaps Professor Steig will exercise greater care in the future when selecting coauthors.
I am going to have to say that Hays has failed scientifically to make his point by saying basically that it seems colder to him. I am glad to see that he questioned the methodology, specifically the sampling method, but his apparent argument against the use of statistics is weak.
I think that the focus here should be on the sampling method rather than the broader discipline of quantitative analysis.
naught101 (20:57:58) :
Besides, Hays presents nothing more than anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely meaningless (āDecember 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Stationā).
Completely meaningless? He’s there on the ground in Antarctica working as a meteorologist – where are you that you can say that? Your comment beggars belief.
Well done Ross Hays for coming out and saying this in the face of this kind of opposition.
naught101 wrote: “Besides, Hays presents nothing more than anecdotal evidence, some of which is completely meaningless (āDecember 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Stationā).”
Is this really anecdotal evidence, or is it a statement based on actual December temperatures at McMurdo? Should be easy enough to verify.
It has been known for several years now that Antarctica can show both cooling and warming trends depending on the start date of the trend. The warming trend is dependent on starting 50 years ago. For the last 20-30 years the trend shows cooling.
The people who push the warm trend argue that their start point utilizes the “full data” set. But I think that choice is just opportunistic BS. The more interesting trend is that Antarctica has been definitely cooling these past 20-30 years just as Ross Hayes has observed, and that cooling is during the same time period that the AGW crowd claims that the global temperatures uncoupled from natural variation and thus they must conclude that the past 20-30 year of warming must be man made..
Antarctica remains a very embarrassing contradiction. So they hide the recent cooling in a re-hash of the 50 year warming trend and ignore the cooling trend.
It is a most interesting irony that the Antarctica peninsula has been warming consistently whether the global temperature have risen or fallen. The Antarctic peninsula is in fact the best example of something that has uncoupled from natural variations and atmospheric temperature trends. And ironically it suggests that something other than CO2 is the driving force. Vulcanism may be a possible answer.
See map:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/29/Global_Cooling_Map.png
What a great letter. It explains the nearby RSS UAH satellite lower troposphere measurements, increase in ice as well as the politics.
I’m not clear on this:
“There was a paper presented at the AMS Conference in New Orleans last year noting over 70% of the continent was cooling due to the ozone hole. We launch balloons into the stratosphere and the anticyclone that develops over the South Pole has been displaced and slow to establish itself over the past five seasons.”
So is he attributing the cooling to the ozone hole or something else?
Anyone?
Politically, I think we should let the alarmists implement some of their ridiculous ideas and then watch them crash and burn like they are about to do in the UK/EU.
They’ll be completely discredited after a short period of pain. I’m afraid that if we are able to stop them politically, this nonsense will drag on for decades.
A pox on all of their data manipulation houses!
“The pattern in the troposphere has reflected this trend with more maritime (warmer) air around the Antarctic Peninsula which is also where most of the automated weather stations are located for West Antarctica which will give you the average warmer readings and skew the data for all of West Antarctica.”
http://i255.photobucket.com/albums/hh133/mataraka/ozoneap.jpg
So spatial drift in the minima and maxima of ozone over the Antarctic Peninsula is clearly obvious.
In Seattle, I have sent the following letter to the Editor, Seattle Times.
************************************************************************************
Editor:
The Seattle Times takes bad science and packages it as breaking news.
The newspaper printed a story by reporter S Doughton regarding a ‘study’ from the University of Washington about warming of the Antarctic continent ( UW study says Antarctica now feeling the heat, too, originally published Jan. 21, 2009 ).
There were some pronouncements made in the media, particularly to the Associated Press by a Dr. Michael Mann, that marry the UW paper with āglobal warmingā, even though no such claim was made in the press release about the scientific paper itself.
In my opinion, this press release and subsequent Times usage, was done for media attention, most likely to coincide with Al Goreās upcoming address to congress, so that he could announce āWeāve now learned Antarctica is warmingā. A Google News search shows about 530 articles on the UW press release in various media.
A response to Eric Steig has been published at the web site http://www.wattsupwiththat.org. by Ross Hays. Ross was a CNN meteorologist for
many years. He works for NASA at the Columbia Balloon Facility in the Antarctic.
Faulty science does not belong in any newspaper unless reported as such, reporter agendas, of merit, belong on the opinion pages. Apparently, the Seattle Times will stop at nothing to push its own agenda.
Steven Keeler
************************************************************************************
I have also sent an email to Mr. Steig at the University of Washingtons Quaternary Research Center ( steig@ess.washington.edu ) . In my opinion, his interpolations, as stated, are an embarrassment to computer scientists in particular and to my home state as well .
REPLY: Thank you, but just a point to consider. Newspaper editors regularly reject letters that are copied almost verbatum from websites. Using my text will probably disqualify your letter. I encourage voicing opinions in your own words. – Anthony
Very interesting, Maksi…
The trend for sea ice extent trend is clearly growing for the last 20 years.
Do you really think it would be growing if it were getting warmer?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
The anomoly for 2008 was almost 2 million km^2.
Would this also be a sign of warming?
More anecdotal evidence from the field:
From a recent post: “In a document published January 19th, NOAAās Climate Prediction Center (NCEP) has officially put the stamp on the cold water conditions weāve seen growing in the equatorial mid and eastern Pacific. ………… This does not bode well for Californiaās drought conditions, which are likely to continue due to this renewed La NiƱa event.”
Down here in the southern part of the state, in December, we had a heavy accumulation of snow and an extended cold snap, highly unusual and unseen in the 20 years I’ve lived here. As I type, it’s raining, with more predicted for next week, starting on Monday. Drought? Warming? I guess it depends on where you happen to be, and if you stick your head out the window and it hits you in the face. If you’re sitting in a controlled climate building, analyzing ‘adjusted’ satellite data, it apparently looks warm and dry.
Why are we paying these guys to bamboozle us?
and as you may be wondering, Mr. Steig is a ‘no show’ regarding a response to my email.
REPLY: he is probably inundated today, give him time. – Anthony
Sort of off topic
I’m an agnostic still trying to get a real grasp on the science of all this so please bare with me.
If the planet has got hotter since 1973 then something might be causing it outside of the normal mechanisms. As a psychologist my immediate question is what significant changes in the behaviour of humans might cause such an event, burning fossil fuels is “more of the same” and so not one I would look at first. Try this instead.
In 1973 Motorola demonstrated the first mobile phone, since then we have seen a massive growth in their use in the world, could this be the cause?
1. The existence of mobile phones has greatly increased the demand for electricity, in turn demanding an increase in the use of fossil fuels.
2. Mobile phones use microwave frequencies which are known to cause excitation (heating) in water molecules. This in low level but persistent over the entire period talked about and cumulative.
3. Water vapour is a “Green House Gas” far more effective than CO2, if I have understood this sights past postings.
Could these factors combined, in the hands of a scientist like Michael Mann, be used to prove a causal relationship resulting in the closure of all mobile networks across the world?
I look forward to your replies
NEIL JONES While this really doesn’t belong here on this thread, I’ll cut you some slack as a first time commenter. I’m happy to answer your question. Cell phones produce so little radio power (about 50 to 100 milliwatts typically) that the total amount of radiated power is negligible compared to the 1365 watts per square meter of average solar energy impacting the earth’s surface. Also, since water molecules are sensitive to a particular band of microwave frequency, typically 2.45 gigahertz, which makes them resonate and thus “heat up” from the transference of energy from the microwaves. This is why a microwave oven works well. It causes the water molecules in the food to resonate.
Cell phones on the other hand use a frequency band starting at 824 megahertz and end at 894 megahertz. These are frequencies that do not cause resonance in water molecules, and thus they don’t appreciably heat the water vapor in air. If they did, the cell phone range would we limited to a few yards since all the radio energy would be dissipated into the water vapor in the nearby air. Thus for the two reasons I cited above, power and frequency band, there is no cause-effect with cell phones and atmospheric warming. – Anthony
I say let the cap and trade bonds go the way of the stock market. They will be nothing more than junk bonds in a hurry. This scheme will be self-correcting, just like the housing market bubble. Yes, people will crash and burn and a few traders may jump out windows, but this may be the only way to move beyond the alarmism.
This is a great example of why statistical analysis usually contains less information than ground-based individual observation. The statistical approaches almost always loses information by making invalid assumptions that the measurements it employs were made with all other relevant conditions equal.
The ground-based informed and intelligent observer notes the other critical variations in factors that statistics ignore. Mann is simply politicking and will almost certainly come to grief with many others on that basis.
The short-term political battle in the US over GW has been lost and will remain lost for at least two years. Let the fools in DC cap and trade themselves out their jobs.
The American people aren’t completely stupid and after a few more winters like the last two, they will awaken with a vengeance – no matter how much propaganda is thrown at them.
[snip, this belongs on the appropriate thread, please repost it there on the bus-biofuel thread]
OT but in my opinion an IMPORTANT piece of the climate/weather puzzle:
Cosmic rays detected deep underground reveal secrets of the upper atmosphere
“Cosmic-rays detected half a mile underground in a disused U.S. iron-mine can be used to detect major weather events occurring 20 miles up in the Earthās upper atmosphere, a new study has revealed”.
“What did surprise the scientists, however, were the intermittent and sudden increases observed in the levels of muons during the winter months. These jumps in the data occurred over just a few days. On investigation, they found these changes coincided with very sudden increases in the temperature of the stratosphere (by up to 40 oC in places!). Looking more closely at supporting meteorological data, they realised they were observing a major weather event, known as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming. On average, these occur every other year and are notoriously unpredictable. This study has shown, for the first time, that cosmic-ray data can be used effectively to identify these events.
Lead scientist for the National Centre for Atmospheric Science, Dr Scott Osprey said: āUp until now we have relied on weather balloons and satellite data to provide information about these major weather events. Now we can potentially use records of cosmic-ray data dating back 50 years to give us a pretty accurate idea of what was happening to the temperature in the stratosphere over this time. Looking forward, data being collected by other large underground detectors around the world, can also be used to study this phenomenon.ā
http://www.ncas.ac.uk/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=446&Itemid=249
Anthony
Thanks for your patient response to my post however I’d like to point out mobile phones have been recorded to cause localised warming in the human brain so I’m not convinced about the “No Effect” argument for the frequency. As for the power question, a candle if left long enough can boil a gallon of water, it’s low output/input is mitigated by duration.
I understand this is all as probable as a hockey stick graph but I thought I’d ask.
Thanks again
N
The arctic has been studied as well:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1186593
I have now read the ‘Antarctic Warming’ article and hereby declare it to be the worst demonstration of bias in science that has ever hit a journal of such high regard. It is hardly even worth comment, except to provide an explanation as to (click below)…
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/archive/1549-1676/2/8/pdf/10.1371_journal.pmed.0020124-L.pdf
Ron de Haan, the paper you mention is pretty clear that the muon flux is used to detect stratospheric warmings; there is no suggestion of a causal link.
So the Environmentalists are laying on a massive media offencive in anticipation to the change of administration within the White house….
Well then, it’s going to be a very interesting time as a spectator of politics.
….. Because politics is exactly what it is…. It has nothing to do with Climate.
Reply to: John Plaice about Labrador ice
In this site
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsr/arctic_AMSRE_visual.png
http://www.iup.uni-bremen.de:8084/amsredata/asi_daygrid_swath/l1a/n6250/2009/jan/asi-n6250-20090121-v5_visual.png
the ice was there yesterday … yet.
Anthony regarding your comment on cell phones. It is possible to collect weather data from cell phone networks. Cell phones and base stations constantly monitor receive power and adjust transmit power levels accordingly to overcome attenuation (to a different extent with different technologies). If you look at the data for all the phones in a cell you will see the power levels changing depending on the water in the air.( You are right to say the frequency is too low to resonate the water molecule but there is still some attenuation.) With thousands of cells in a network and almost everywhere covered you could create real time maps of perception and fog. The data is there if someone were to write the software to collect and use it but i am no weather expert so don’t know how useful it would be.
As for cell phones heating the air well all signals end up as heat unless they go into space but as you say its a tiny power. The non radio network elements use a lot more power and produce a lot more heat.
Neil Jones –
Visible light that comes from an incandescent light bulb in your home puts out 10^6 more energy than your cell phone. Do you get “baked” sitting under the light from this when you are reading a book? No! (unless you are smoking something funny at the same time…).
You can calculate this on your own using Einstein’s equation of:
E = hv, where h = Planck’s constant (6.63E-34 J*s) where a megahertz of a cell phone is approximately 8.5E8/s and that of a light bulb is 5.5E14/s.
Don’t believe all of the conspiracy crap you find on the internet.
Not only do we know, thanks to DeSmogBlog, that interest in climate skepticism and concern about fraudulent climate science has doubled Google ratings last year, now the latest survey finds that the number of US voters disbelieving in manmade global warming has just tipped into an outright majority, 51%.
So thanks to Ross Hays for speaking up and saying what he knew (anecdotal) without claiming what he did not know. Every little helps.
wattsupwiththat (23:14:54) :
NEIL JONES Iām happy to answer your question. Cell phones produce so little radio power (about 50 to 100 milliwatts typically) that the total amount of radiated power is negligible compared to the 1365 watts per square meter of average solar energy impacting the earthās surface.
Ummm, that’s TSI at the top of the atmosphere, about 1000 watts per sq meter down here.
This is the sort of posting that fully justified the voting for best Scientific Blog, IMHO
Anthony: In addition to the number of stations in the West Antarctic skewing the results, Mann and Steig were somewhat open about the Steig et al (2009) paper in their post on RealClimate.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/
They note in Clarification 3: āOur paper ā by itself ā does not address whether Antarctica’s recent warming is part of a longer term trend. There is separate evidence from ice cores that Antarctica has been warming for most of the 20th century, but this is complicated by the strong influence of El NiƱo events in West Antarctica. In our own published work to date (Schneider and Steig, PNAS), we find that the 1940s [edit for clarity: the 1935-1945 decade] were the warmest decade of the 20th century in West Antarctica, due to an exceptionally large warming of the tropical Pacific at that time.ā
If the link doesnāt make it through, hereās the link to the abstract of the Schneider and Steig (2008), PNAS paper āIce cores record significant 1940s Antarctic warmth related to tropical climate variabilityā:
http://www.pnas.org/content/105/34/12154.abstract
The āexceptionally large warming of the tropical Pacific at that timeā referred to was the 1939/40/41/42 El Nino. From the Schneider and Steig abstract: āThis record, representative of West Antarctic surface temperature, shows extreme positive anomalies in the 1936ā45 decade that are significant in the context of the background 20th Century warming trend. We interpret these anomaliesāpreviously undocumented in the high-latitude SHāas indicative of strong teleconnections in part driven by the major 1939ā42 El NiƱo. These anomalies are coherent with tropical sea-surface temperature, mean SH air temperature, and North Pacific sea-level pressure, underscoring the sensitivity of West Antarctica’s climate, and potentially its ice sheet, to large-scale changes in the global climate.ā
Since weāve had more than one āexceptionally large warming of the tropical Pacificā since 1976, one would think that the more recent warming in the West Antarctic should also be attributable to the high number of El Nino events. I noted this in a post at my website last night.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/recent-antarctic-warming-attribution.html
And to put the multiyear early-1940s El Nino into perspective, hereās a graph of NINO3.4 SST anomalies thatās been smoothed with a 2-year (actually 25-month) filter. While the 1939-42 El Nino was larger when viewed with this smoothing, note how many significant El Nino events there were after 1976.
http://i33.tinypic.com/2cmp7ck.jpg
The 1982/83 and the 1991-95 El Nino events, though, were suppressed by volcanoes, making them Non-Ninos. That leaves the 1986/87/88 and 1997/98 El Ninos to raise global temperature in steps. And you posted my take on that last week:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
Regards
The satellite data is only for the last 25 or so years, does show warming or cooling?
Neil,
the arguments Anthony made on the question of frequencies and excitation of water molecules are hard physics. Radiation from mobile phones cannot heat water through excitation. Period.
As for your claim that it has been shown that radiation from cell phones will heat parts of the brain that is a dubious claim. A couple of years ago, students at the Norwegian University of Technology in Trondheim, Norway, performed a study where they hade people talking at length with mobile phones while measuring the temperature in the region around the ear. What they found was that the heating was independent of whether the transmitter in the phone was active or not. What they did was actually physically disconnecting the transmitter in some of the phones but having people keep them to their ear for the same period of time as those who where actually talking with active phones. The heating of the skull was the same, thus indicating that the insulation of the area due to a hand and phone covering the air was the culprit and not radiation.
This is also in line with previous claims that radiation lead to heating, as those studies found more heating by time in accordance with what happens when you insulate an area of the skull.
Aplogies for this OT, and I will understand if Anthony removes this post.
Reutersā¦. Wilkins Ice Shelf hanging by a threadā¦
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=97373&videoChannel=74
Jan 21 – An Antarctic ice shelf is on the brink of collapse with just a sliver of ice holding it in place, the latest victim of global warming that is altering maps of the frozen continent.
The video on the warming story. Reporter āstretchingā what was said.
http://www.reuters.com/news/video?videoId=97453&videoChannel=74
Jan 22 – Antarctica is getting warmer rather than cooling as widely believed, according to a study that fits the icy continent into the wider trend of global warming.
Anthony,
while I agree there are many reasons not to consider cell phones in relationship to global warming your answer is rather technically lacking when it comes to frequency usage and water resonance.
For the frequencies you can check Wikipedia. There are quite a few bands used globally.
Besides that it’s a myth that you specifically need 2.45Ghz in a microwave oven. It’s the amount of power and the construction of the oven that gives you the desired result. Check Wikipedia and you can find references to ovens working at 915Mhz. Actually sold models aren’t hard to find either (bottom model).
Basically the cell phone angle is pointless because of the lack of power and the fact that earth isn’t exactly constructed to work like a microwave oven anyway.
Thank you Mr Hays. Very courageous of you. Particularly the last sentence.
Ron de Haan (23:16:20) :
āCosmic-rays detected half a mile underground in a disused U.S. iron-mine can be used to detect major weather events occurring 20 miles up in the Earthās upper atmosphere, a new study has revealedā.
Looking more closely at supporting meteorological data, they realised they were observing a major weather event, known as a Sudden Stratospheric Warming. On average, these occur every other year and are notoriously unpredictable. This study has shown, for the first time, that cosmic-ray data can be used effectively to identify these events.
Very interesting. Wikipedia has this to say:
One reason for major stratospheric warmings to occur in the Northern hemisphere is because orography and land-sea temperature contrasts are responsible for the generation of long (wavenumber 1 or 2) Rossby waves in the troposphere. These waves travel upward to the stratosphere and are dissipated there, producing the warming by decelerating the mean flow. This is the reason that major warmings are only observed in the northern-hemisphere, with one exception. In 2002 a southern-hemisphere major warming was observed. This event to date is not fully understood.
Does Ross Hays have any knowledge of this anomalous antarctic event, and if so, please could he comment.
Ozone as a greenhouse gas controlling the southern vortex ?
Not sure if this is the jist of what Ross is trying to convey, but the decrease in Ozone over the poles ( caused by CFC’s ??? ) apparantly has sped up the southern vortex due to the increased rate of heat loss and subsequent increase in the hadley circulation. One theory to explain the heating/ cooling in Antarctica is that the vortex has pulled the low pressure systems further south allowing warmer air to reach the edges of the continent but at the same time the interior has cooled due to increased heat loss and less mixing with warmer air masses to the north due to the increased containment of the polar air mass.
What I’m not sure about is where Ross describes how the circulation has slowed in recent years given we still have Ozone depletion compared to earlier years ?
Also, with the prospect of increased cosmic rays due to extended solar cycle minimum, I’m curious what even further reduced ozone may have on the polar regions.
Does anyone have info on heat loss caused by reduced ozone at the poles ? Is this a contributing factor of global cooling during low sunspot cycles such as the maunder minimum ???
There would seem to be a possible fit here somewhere….!
For the second time in a week I’m in agreement with you! I’m sure things will be back to normal soon š
Neil Jones, in addition to Anthony’s answer I would add that cell phone technology has only really expanded world-wide in the last 10 – 15 years, therefore if your theory was correct, then one would expect to see warming occurring more recently and it would be accelerating. The earth has been in a cooling trend for the last 3 or four years, and has not warmed at all since 1998, so on that basis alone, I would refute that theory.
My God! Anthony might have found the problem – Microwave Ovens! Add that to CO2, Cow Farts and several other items accused of being the cause of predicted global warming and the Goreites have another suspect to add to their list of climate ‘enemies’.
A gorey truth about timing of iconic Antarctic warming and carbon trading dynamics. Broker buys 6000 carbon credits from pig farmer in the Phillipines paying $2 per tonne, ie $12,000 per year to install biogas unit (for pig shit). Broker sells credits to special investment bank at $10 per tonne. Bank sells carbon credits to industrial company faced with carbon cap and facing cost of emission reduction at $25-50 per tonne. Company happy to pay ban $15 per tonne. (Figures with the help of Jonathan Leake in a Sunday Times article).
Generation Investment Management is specialist carbon bank. CEO? Al Gore. Directors? Ex-Goldman Sachs. Founded several years ago, before the ‘Inconvenient Truth’ was released – but this particular inconvenient truth was not disclosed.
Thought for the day. Might be worth asking the many players to disclose and declare interests – a common practice in our own parliament back here on the motherboard!
I’m not certain how much longer Americans can afford to be spectators of their political and government betters. This site and Climate Audit are not spectating, but have planted a banner at which to rally. Enough of us have rallied at these banners, now we need to plant a new banner closer to the front.
Jim G (22:22:22) :
The trend for sea ice extent trend is clearly growing for the last 20 years.
Do you really think it would be growing if it were getting warmer?
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.anom.south.jpg
The anomoly for 2008 was almost 2 million km^2.
Would this also be a sign of warming?
In the nonsensical world of the AGW Political Propaganda Machine Ice growth = Warming.
Minus 50 and in danger of MELTING.
Drowning us all in oceans of…. Umm, not water, ’cause at minus 50 degrees, it’s a little bit, um, frozen. Yeah. How about that.
Statistics? More like “Crap. Listed”.
Gentlemen, we’ve reached the tipping point, all right, except it’s the tipping point of our sanity…. Sigh….
naught101
Ross’s letter is precise and assuming Steig is very familiar with the areas he mentions should be compelling for him. It is silly and perverse to assert that such a letter is merely anecdotal.
The McMurdo monthly temp data is here: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/STATIONS//tmp.700896640008.1.1/station.txt
Ross appears to be essentially correct. Graphically and by inspection, there appears to be little if any trend over this 50 year record.
I remain bemused by the level of precision and certainty explicit and implicit in these articles and especially in the statements to the Press.
The reason no attempt has been made before to re-write the temperature record of Antarctica (like they have done with the rest of the world) is that Antarctica temp readings have been taken by trained scientists and high-trained meterologists using the best equipment available.
This should be the best temperature record that exists and there was no justification before to undo the stable or cooling temperature trend.
What Mann and Steig have really done here is call out all those dedicated scientists (freezing there ___ off in -55C) and say their records were no good.
No wonder they are not impressed.
I don’t get it. From the limited data set, it looks like temps have been going down.
http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/20060907/20060907_02.pdf
How far do sats go? I thought I read 70 degrees, but the hole looks pretty small in the sea ice images… UAH and MSU, are there links for those records?
Ross Hayes is a very brave person. I hope he has another job lined up.
Also, Cryosphere Today is a joke.
A lesson in history.
Comments made by William.O.Field Pioneer Glaciologist, (in the 1960’s)
With about 90% of the worlds ice, Antarctica is a super refrigeration system.
The last ice age began retreating rapidly about 13,000 years ago, the melting raised the oceans some 400 ft. to there present level. What brought about this climatic pendulum. According to the”solar radiation theory, variations in the amount of energy radiated by the Sun produce climatic changes on Earth. Thus, during periods of less intense solar radiation, the Earth could be cooled sufficiently to trigger an ice age.
Closely linked with radiation is a second theory which holds that unexplained changes in the composition of the Earths atmosphere- increased cloud cover, for example-might black out some of the Sun’s radiation, and so lower the Earth’s temperature. A similar effect could be produced by natural air pollution, ( volcanic ash ) and possibly, concentrations of meteoric debris or other matter in space between us and the Sun.
Whatever the reason the whole subject is profoundly complex, with enough variables to defy all the worlds computers, and it will take forever for man to unravel the true story.
meanwhile where are we now? Are the world’s glaciers melting sufficiently to raise the sea level, or is the Earth cooling and heading for another ice age?
quote; Richard P.Goldthwait, founder, U.S.A. Institute of Polar Studies .
Very probably we are now in the middle or perhaps towards the end of an interglacial period lasting thousands of years. The Earth has swung back and forth between ice ages and interglacial periods for a million or two years and we can expect it to continue.
Cell phones produce so little radio power (about 50 to 100 milliwatts typically) that the total amount of radiated power is negligible compared to the 1365 watts per square meter of average solar energy impacting the earthās surface.
Even at noon on the equator 1365 W/m^2 does not reach the surface.
Every thread that refers to the cell phone issue reminds of a book by Economist Thomas Sowell. Its subtitle is “Thinking Beyond Stage One”.
My ear and skull that surrounds my ear where the cell phone has been for 60 minutes is warm; therefore, the microwave radiation must have excited the water molecules in my ear and head, and is probably heating the atmoshere too.
From politicians, from AGW actiivists, and from individuals I keep reading and hearing “Stage One Thinking”.
Thanks to all of you on this website that help me to think to stage two and sometimes stage three. I don’t know if I am ready to think to stage four as I don’t know, and we all don’t know enough about the dynamics of our solar and weather system.
The ozone hole is there because the Antarctic is dark in the winter so no sunlight to produce ozone. Plus ozone is naturally unstable and has a half life of days or months: No need for cfcs, cosmic rays, etc to explain why the ozone hole is there. Can it be that simple?
“Cell phones on the other hand use a frequency band starting at 824 megahertz and end at 894 megahertz.”
This is one of a number of frequencies used by cell phones. The most common 3G band worldwide is 2.1GHz and phones designed for roaming will support 850/900/1800/1900/2100 Mhz.
If you want to blame wireless networking, look to all the WiFi devices which operate at 2.4GHz.
Bob: If you look at the dates he gave over at Real Climate, there was going from the 1935-1945 period cooling below the current temperature level till at least 1957/58. Warming started and ran until 1969, which was warmer than the rest of the cenury but not as warm at the 1935-1945 period. From 1969 the author says show cooling till the end of the century.
So the whole basis of warming in the Anarctic from 1935 on is the 11 year period between 1957/58 and 1969. It was cooling before that and cooling after that. That is some pretty impressive cherry picking if you ask me.
MarkM:
Is that the only possible conclusion?
Isn’t it more likely that the heat from the discharge of the phone’s battery up against your head for 60 minutes might account for the perceived warmth?
Interesting article w/video about the attacks on skeptical scientists: click
Smokey (07:17:15) :
I am sorry Smokey, I did not label that paragraph properly: SARCASM ALERT!
That sentence is a classic example of stage one thinking.
“his apparent argument against the use of statistics is weak”
Sorry, the shoe is definitely on the other foot. As Leon and Bill point out,
Dr. “I am not a statistician” Mann needs expert statistical and epistemological supervision on a worker release program, cff. Dr. Wegman’s report.
By tossing him this co-authorship bone, Dr.Steig has blundered badly.
So when Al Gore gets up to make his next PowerPoint presentation using Michael Mann’s Antarctic temperature data, will the graph he unveils come to be known as the ice hockey stick?
I’m somewhat puzzled by Ross Hays’ letter, since his criticisms do not seem to me to bear particularly upon the Steig paper:-
1. “There are very few stations in Antarctica to begin with and only a hand full with 50 years of data. “
This is recognised in Steig’s paper, as follows:
In essence, we use the spatial covariance structure of the surface temperature field to guide interpolation of the sparse but reliable 50-year-long records of 2-m temperature from occupied weather stations. Although it has been suggested that such interpolation is unreliable owing to the distances involved1, large spatial scales are not inherently problematic if there is high spatial coherence, as is the case in continental Antarctica4.
2. “Satellite data is just approaching thirty years of available information.” I presume Hays means MSU data. Steig uses surface IR measurements.
3. “In my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica the summer seasons have been getting colder.”
Steig is more in agreement with Hays than previous modeling simulations! See here:
The simulations show warming in austral summer and autumn, restricted to the peninsula, whereas in our reconstruction the greatest warming is in winter and spring, and in continental West Antarctica as well as on the peninsula.
Note that Steig is describing warming over the whole 50-year period not over the 1980s onwards period that Hays references. I don’t think Ross Hays has any first-hand experience to report from the ’50s. The paper’s findings are not, as far as I can see, necessarily in conflict with Hays’ recent experience – they report that weather stations generally show no significant annual trend in recent decades and thus, in the context of finding a ‘winter warming’ tendency overall, this may be in accord with Hays’ experience.
4. ” In a synoptic perspective the cooler sea surface temperatures have kept the maritime storms farther offshore in the summer season and the colder more dense air has rolled from the South Pole to the ice shelf.
There was a paper presented at the AMS Conference in New Orleans last year noting over 70% of the continent was cooling due to the ozone hole. We launch balloons into the stratosphere and the anticyclone that develops over the South Pole has been displaced and slow to establish itself over the past five seasons. The pattern in the troposphere has reflected this trend with more maritime (warmer) air around the Antarctic Peninsula…”
I see nothing in the Steig paper necessarily in conflict with Hays’ current meteorological observations. The conclusion is:
the future trajectory of Antarctic temperature change also depends on the extent to which changes in atmospheric composition (whether from greenhouse gases or stratospheric ozone) affect Southern Hemisphere sea ice and regional atmospheric circulation patterns. Improved representation in models of coupled atmosphere/sea-ice dynamics will be critical for forecasting Antarctic temperature change.
5. “…which is also where most of the automated weather stations are located for West Antarctica which will give you the average warmer readings and skew the data for all of West Antarctica.”
Frankly, this suggests that Hays has not read the paper carefully enough. Please refer to Figure 1, which shows very clearly that Hays’ presumption is wrong. Or else the following text explicitly shows that his presumption of automated stations being the basis of study is wrong:
In essence, we use the spatial covariance structure of the surface temperature field to guide interpolation of the sparse but reliable 50-year-long records of 2-m
temperature from occupied weather stations. (my bold).
AWS measurements are used only for estimating spatial co-variance: the density of their distribution cannot ‘skew’ the results.
With statistics you can make numbers go to almost any conclusion you want. It saddens me to see members of the scientific community do this for media coverage.
Hmm. I don’t think that’s a scientific criticism, so I’ll reserve comment.
My unreserved apology to every one reading my posts on mobile phones. Clearly my irony was lost. I had hoped my references to Michael Mann and the science being as valid as a hockey stick graph would flag it for people.
I failed to communicate it properly, my mistake, it won’t happen again
Neil
Stephen Parrish (04:26:02) :
Iām not certain how much longer Americans can afford to be spectators of their political and government betters. This site and Climate Audit are not spectating, but have planted a banner at which to rally. Enough of us have rallied at these banners, now we need to plant a new banner closer to the front.
Very true.
“Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more…”
No quarter!
Ed (05:07:15)
“How far do sats go? I thought I read 70 degrees, but the hole looks pretty small in the sea ice imagesā¦ UAH and MSU, are there links for those records?”
From http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/03/08/putting-a-myth-about-uah-and-rss-satellite-data-to-rest/, Dr Christy says:
“As the spacecraft rolls over the pole it does so at an inclined orbit so
that the highest nadir latitude is about 82 deg with the scanner looking
out a bit closer to the pole. Since we apply the scan line data mostly to
the nadir area directly below the satellite, the actual data only go to
about 83 deg. In the gridded data I interpolate over the pole, but I
wouldnāt trust the data too much beyond 85 deg.”
So according to Dr. Christy, the UAH MSU sat has an inclination around 82 degrees (if it’s NOAA-N, my info says it’s 98.7…a retrograde sun-synch, so the max nadir latitude would be 81.3), with actual side-scan data (off-nadir, or measured from directly below the satellite) of only 1 more degree. Dr. Christy believes he can trust his interpolations towards the pole for only 2 more degrees beyond that. That seems to leave about a 5-degree “cone of silence” around the pole itself.
From what I can find, RSS is also on a NOAA-(x) sat, all of which appear to have that same 98.7 inclination (typical of sun-synch). RSS only seems to report data to -70 degrees, however they go to 82 degrees in the North.
Has anybody noticed that scientists whose livelihoods don’t depend upon AGW are often skeptical of that hypothesis? I’m not talking about scientists in unrelated fields, but people in fields more closely related to climate, but not directly involved in climate research.
It’s also quite telling that many skeptics are retired from climatology and no longer dependent upon funding. Of course, they could just be representative of the old guard, but many can be shown to have nothing to gain or lose by announcing their skepticism.
As has been noted on other threads, skeptics and proponents are entrenched in their positions. Researchers have the same human foibles as the rest us. First, anybody who is competent in their field almost always believe they are right. Second, the incompetents also almost always believe they are right, too. People are reluctant to admit mistakes and are often more concerned about protecting their professional reputations than in advancing science.
I have yet to come to grasp the failure of educated, informed people to understand that computer models do not output facts, anymore than your local 10-day weather forecast is a fact. Weather reports contain facts, while models of possible future events are only possibilities.
Critics of this observation often tell me scientists and engineers use models every day. Yes, and those models work with things where we know what the results are supposed to be. When an engineer uses a model, the output can be compared to the expected results. The formulas are well-known and were created through decades of real-world observation and measurement.
Contrast this with the GCM output spurported to show future warming, which are full of estimates and hypotheticals. These models do not output predictions, but “what ifs”. These models are also full of “what ifs”. The exact interaction between different pieces of the climate system are unknown. Make a slight change in some of the calculations and vastly different values are output. Not surprisingly, the observed predictive power of these GCM models is very poor.
Mann, et al, have released another study which shows, through statistical analysis of interpolated data, that Antarctica is actually warming and not cooling, contrary to what our instruments tell us. This study isn’t backed up by any empirical data. Again, it’s interpolated. How can this be considered science?
Even non-skeptic climate researchers are critical of Mann’s methods. It’s pure junk science and its high time we recognize it as such
I have a specific question for Ross Hays, should he happen to be reading here:
Mr Hays,
You state in your letter, reproduced above:
“In my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica the summer seasons have been getting colder.”
I see that you have described your new career in a blog post elsewhere, dated December 3rd 2008, as follows:
After being in a comfort zone and set daily routine changing jobs can awaken you to a whole new direction. After 19 years with CNN and over 200 job applications I was given a job with the NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility. The base of operation is near Palestine, TX. We are known has NASA’s secret due to little publicity and knowledge of our operation. We use large balloons up to 60 million cubic feet. They stand 900 feet and inflate to the size of the Superdome. The balloons can carry payloads up to 8000 pounds up 125,000 feet (over 23 miles). This takes the experiments through 99% of the atmosphere or the edge of space. Most of the payloads are astrophysics looking out into space, but there are also ones studying the atmosphere for example the ozone hole over Antarctica was first discovered by one of the scientific groups using the balloon program. Since the payloads are at the edge of space and not in space they can be dropped by parachute and reused to continue research for years. It also only cost 1/1000th of what it would be if a rocket was used sending the science into space with the payloads in space burning up on reentry. We launch every year in the southern summer from Antarctica near McMurdo Station on Ross Island. We also launch from the arctic at the Swedish Space agency base of Esrange, near Kiruna, Sweden. Twice a year launches are carried out from Fort Sumner, NM and from Alice Springs, Australia every other year. Many other sites around the world are selected depending on the science.
My new job is almost an adventure. I never though I would be going to Antarctica or the Arctic for that matter. Last year I spend the southern summer in Antarctica. This year I will be spending the holidays at home with the family in East Texas after spending six weeks in New Mexico. Next month I have to return to Esrange, Sweden for an international campaign studying the polar vortex. The days have only 56 minutes of daylight during early January with temperatures of -35 to freeze a beer on the window sill in 18 minutes. I will return to Esrange in the early summer, then next November it will be my turn to return to Antarctica. (my bold)/
http://darynkagan.ning.com/profiles/blogs/new-career
This makes clear that your direct experience of Anarctica extends only to one summer season. It is very difficult, therefore, to understand how you can make observations based upon your direct experience in regard to “summer seasons…getting colder”. Can you explain this?
Hi Mike Bryant,
I read Ross Haye’s letter and immediately turned to my wife and said, “this guy is gonna get fired.” LOL But if I worked in Antartica full-time I would contradict my employers (NASA) on a daily basis until they fired me and flew me back home where its warm. But that’s just me.
Grant
Graeme Rodaughan (04:28:41) :
In the nonsensical world of the AGW Political Propaganda Machine Ice growth = Warming.
Not to act as an apologist for alarmists, but the logic behind this does make sense. A warmer world would be more humid, which would make more precipitation at the coldest point. Then again, this is the kind of absolutist logic that fools the unwary. Nothing is that simple.
Anthony Watts says:
While the timing may seem suspicious to you, I am at a loss to come up with a plausible mechanism to explain this coincidence. After all, the timing of the press conference corresponds to the timing of the appearance of this paper in Nature. So, are you saying that the authors somehow convinced the Nature editors to change the date when the paper was going to be published in order to coincide with the announcement of Gore’s speech to Congress? And, given that Gore’s speech was (according to your link) just announced yesterday and I can imagine Nature would need to decide their publication schedule at least a few weeks in advance, this whole scenario seems impossible…unless the authors got very advanced word on when Gore would speak. (And, even then, I don’t know how plausible it is that the authors could get Nature to move up or back the publication of their paper.)
I suppose it is conceivable that the timing of Gore’s speech or the announcement the Gore would speak was timed to coincide with this paper, although it seems more timed to the political realities of having a new President and new Congress.
Ross Hays first and last paragraphs are the most telling I have ever read on the subject of man’s possible influence on global climate. He is to be commended for his integrity; or as my father drilled into me as a boy. “There are lies, damned lies, and statistics.”
On an associated topic; could anyone throw any light on the reason why there appears to be an apparently large number of ‘Economists’ pushing the AGW agenda? They are no more ‘climate scientists’ than I am. Considering the track record of many Economists (often appearing little more than guesswork), I would be loathe to trust their judgement on this matter.
I added the following in Part I but I suspect few are now reading that article so I will add it here:
“I wonder what the opinion of this paper by the current set of defenders would have been if it started in 1940 and CONFIRMED antarctic cooling of 70 years.
I also wonder whether it would have been published at all. ”
Obviously, I already know the answer as do most others based on the above comments. The defenders would be attacking the article as unscientific nonsense. And they would be right. It is clearly cherry-picked and as such provides absolutely NO increase in scientific knowledge. (In fact, it would be interesting if someone would actually take the current paper’s data and extend it back to 1940ish and submit it to Nature.)
I believe this is true of any evaluation that depends on the start date. A good scientist would recognize this and understand the analysis is of no value. So, why is it we continue to see this silliness in climate science?
That gets me to another point. Why is it that CAGW defenders come out only on certain articles? The last time they came out in force was to defend Hansen. Is it the fact Dr. Mann is a co-author that brings them out again? Something to think about.
Re: The Cell Phone ‘Problem’
[snip, sorry, no more discussion of cells phones and global warming on this thread]
Joel Shore (09:11:16) :
“While the timing may seem suspicious to you, I am at a loss to come up with a plausible mechanism to explain this coincidence. After all, the timing of the press conference corresponds to the timing of the appearance of this paper in Nature. So, are you saying that the authors somehow convinced the Nature editors to change the date when the paper was going to be published in order to coincide with the announcement of Goreās speech to Congress?”
I have to agree with Joel, I don’t think it has to do with Gore’s speech, rather it was timed to come out with the start of the new administration. That has been well known for quite awhile.
Re: Lee Kington (02:30:47),
Timing is everything…
Kum Dollison (23:15:29) :
[snip, this belongs on the appropriate thread, please repost it there on the bus-biofuel thread]
[snip for the same reason as above]
“RJ Hendrickson (22:23:19) :
Down here in the southern part of the state(California), in December, we had a heavy accumulation of snow and an extended cold snap, highly unusual and unseen in the 20 years Iāve lived here. As I type, itās raining, with more predicted for next week, starting on Monday. Drought? Warming? I guess it depends on where you happen to be, and if you stick your head out the window and it hits you in the face. If youāre sitting in a controlled climate building, analyzing āadjustedā satellite data, it apparently looks warm and dry.
Why are we paying these guys to bamboozle us?”
I’m a skeptic as well, but Central Cal has been very dry this January, up until a couple days ago (that was a killer cold snap in december though). From what I understand, the negative PDO & La Nina conditions cause cooler water in the eastern pacific, which inhibits precipitation on the west coast. We may see a lot of dry weather in Cali if this cooling trend keeps up.
Simon:
A quick search of the Internet indicates that Ross has been at NASA since before 2006. He has spoken of his scepticism about AGW elsewhere. Why on earth would you be so skeptical as to his bona fides?
If all the land stations have shown cooling for the past 30 yearsish… then it must have been cooling over there. But better be sure those thermometers were properly calibrated and that their locations are not affected by human habitats. Then again, trends are in this case more important than absolute temperature.
It should not be hard for the Surfacestation project to survey those “handfull” of stations. I think Mr. Hays would be a good contact to start the survey.
REPLY: Sure, pony up some plane fare, and I’ll fly to the ends of the earth to do any survey. – Anthony
Richard M says:
Well, this is only slightly more plausible. Again, I would ask, do you believe that Nature either rushed or slowed down the publication of this article either on their own or at the request of the authors?!?
It would not be the first time that a “respected” scientific journal timed an article to help push a politically correct point of view. I remember the phony Lancet Iraq death study hurried into print to precede the 2004 US election. Here is the editor of that article at a peace rally: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=csxvUzpIQ18&feature=Responses&parent_video=v7BzM5mxN5U&index=0&playnext=1&playnext_from=RL. Anyone who still trusts these journals when politics is involved is very naive.
Bernie,
I am not sceptical of his background in general, I am simply asking if he could explain his own blog post which reveals that he has had one season to date in Antarctica, and equate that with his reference to experience of Antarctic summers, plural.
I have quoted his own words, that is all – I don’t think I’ve engaged in any speculation.
We can all see what the steps taken so far have accomplished, which is nill. Regardless, I’m afraid if we do implement some of those ridiculous ideas, they will never go away until the next ice age hits. Government programs never die, no matter how ineffective. Usually when they fail, we’re told we need to spend more.
So for now, let’s let other countries experiment and throw away their treasure tilting at windmills.
ClimateFanBoy previously wrote:
“Iām a skeptic as well, but Central Cal has been very dry this January, up until a couple days ago (that was a killer cold snap in december though). From what I understand, the negative PDO & La Nina conditions cause cooler water in the eastern pacific, which inhibits precipitation on the west coast. We may see a lot of dry weather in Cali if this cooling trend keeps up.”
I guess my simple mind is having trouble understanding this week’s forecast then:
http://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?CityName=Angelus+Oaks&state=CA&site=SGX&textField1=34.1458&textField2=-116.982&e=0
Rain predicted every day until next Tuesday. It’s raining as I type this. If precip is inhibited, what’s the wet stuff running down my neck when I step outside? Why did I have to plow snow last month for the first time since I’ve lived here? These predictions of La Nina-caused drought make no sense.
Joel Shore (10:29:57) :
Well, this is only slightly more plausible. Again, I would ask, do you believe that Nature either rushed or slowed down the publication of this article either on their own or at the request of the authors?!?
It is unnecessary to ask for fast publication. The Nature Group prides themselves on haste, as evidenced below. Since this was a letter, the time delay was only 56 days. From experience (I was involved in editing one, but not as an author) it is very highly likely that one could predict +/- two weeks the publication date by reviewing the previous publications and then determining when to submit it for maximum timeliness. I ask you to explain the received and accepted dates below???
Letter
Nature 457, 459-462 (22 January 2008) | doi:10.1038/nature07669; Received 14 January 2008; Accepted 1 December 2008
Warming of the Antarctic ice-sheet surface since the 1957 International Geophysical Year
Simon Evans,
As I read the Hays statement, it appears that a comma should have been placed after ‘Antarctica.’ [āIn my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica the summer seasons have been getting colder.ā] Some of the other grammar in the statement is not perfect, either.
So you are assuming facts not in evidence when you make your accusation:
I get the feeling that nothing would satisfy those who believe in AGW. I also suspect that Ross Hays’ summer in the Antarctic is probably one season more than you have spent in the Antarctic. If I’m mistaken, please tell us what it was like down there. What were your personal observations? Was it, like, cold?
Tim Clark says:
I lost you there Tim…If I read the received and accepted dates correctly, this paper took almost a year to get accepted (although there whole thing is a bit confusing given that the publication data says “2008” when they clearly meant “2009”). Where is this 56 days and +- two weeks predictability that you are talking about?
Furthermore, are you arguing that the authors would write up their work and then purposely sit on it to try to time it for some event?
“” Lee Kington (02:30:47) :
Reutersā¦. Wilkins Ice Shelf hanging by a threadā¦ “”
What they failed to point out in that video on the Wilkins Ice shelf, was that very prominent cliff, than ran alongside the jumbled piece that is breaking up.
What the cliff demonstrates is that the whole area below it already borke up years ago, and has been regrowing’ so the cliff represents the difference in accumulated precipitation since the shelf began growing back. The thicker part above the cliff is quite regular and flat indicating it has been stable for a long period of time.
The thinner piece below is very irregular, insidcating that its growback from the earlier collapse has itself been interrupted many times while that thin section was much more vulnerable to small disturbances.
Ho hum ! those things break up all the time and regrow all the time, and any scientist, whether in santa claus red suit or not, ought to be aware that the Antarctic peninsula sticks up above the antarctic circle, so it gets some sunshine all the time in daytime; and it sticks out into some of the stormiest water on earth where the whole southern ocean goes zipping back and forth through that straight between the peninsula and South America; so those shelves take a terrific physical pounding, and from warmer surface waters that come down from the tropics on circulating currents.
Talk about a nothing story.
RJ Hendrickson, California still gets rain during droughts, just less and/or less often.
Tis interesting that a reconstruction says that warming is at .1C/decade since 58 when the following using actual measurements says only .2c/century.
Twentieth century Antarctic air temperature and snowfall simulations by IPCC climate models. Andrew Monaghan, David Bromwich, and David Schneider. Geophysical Research Letters, April 5, 2008
āWe can now compare computer simulations with observations of actual climate trends in Antarctica,ā says NCAR scientist Andrew Monaghan, the lead author of the study. āThis is showing us that, over the past century, most of Antarctica has not undergone the fairly dramatic warming that has affected the rest of the globe. The challenges of studying climate in this remote environment make it difficult to say what the future holds for Antarcticaās climate.ā
The authors compared recently constructed temperature data sets from Antarctica, based on data from ice cores and ground weather stations, to 20th century simulations from computer models used by scientists to simulate global climate. While the observed Antarctic temperatures rose by about 0.4 degrees Fahrenheit (0.2 degrees Celsius) over the past century, the climate models simulated increases in Antarctic temperatures during the same period of 1.4 degrees F (0.75 degrees C).
The error appeared to be caused by models overestimating the amount of water vapor in the Antarctic atmosphere, the new study concludes. The reason may have to do with the cold Antarctic atmosphere handling moisture differently than the atmosphere over warmer regions.
Smokey,
Your proposed comma makes no difference to the implication of experience in Antarctica over more than one season.
I have not made an accusation. I have simply quoted Hays’ own words and asked for an account of the fact that he has had only one season’s experience (by his own words) yet refers to experience of seasons.
I get the feeling that nothing would satisfy those who believe in AGW.
What a bizarre diversion. I am simply trying to establish the truth of Hays’ experience. He is welcome to clarify. Do you consider an interest in the truth to be something particular to “those who believe in AGW”? I am inclined to agree.
I also suspect that Ross Haysā summer in the Antarctic is probably one season more than you have spent in the Antarctic.
You are absolutely correct – I have never been to the Antarctic. I have also never implied that I have had the sort of experience of the Antarctic that would qualify me to make statements about the trend in summer temperatures. Hays does make such statements, yet seems only to have been there once. Perhaps he would like to clarify, if he is reading?
GREENHOUSE EARTH
http://ethomas.web.wesleyan.edu/ees123/hotstinky.htm
In conclusion, the Earth’s has alternated between warm periods (‘greenhouse Earth’) and cold periods (‘ice house Earth’). We are now in the ice house; green house periods have been much more common than ice house periods over all of Earth History. During warm periods there were no polar ice caps, the continents were flooded and shallow seas (commonly with reefs) were extensive. The oceans contained little dissolved oxygen, and oceanic primary productivity may have been low, on average. The species diversity of oceanic organisms was high during these times of low productivity. Cold periods (such as we have now) characteristically have large ice caps, low sea level and relatively few shallow seas, high primary oceanic productivity but relatively low species diversity. During the warm periods, the dissociation of gas hydrates may have caused climatic instability, extreme warming, and anoxia.
I e-mailed the following comment to the U of W:
>>>I read with interest your press release regarding the claimed antarctic warming. Then I saw the rebuttal by Ross Hayes: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/22/antarctic-warming-part-2-a-letter-from-a-meteorologist-on-the-ground-in-antarctica/#more-5241
This extreme differences in opinion are disturbing. The community of scientists should have a much better grasp on the trend.
Sincerely,
Craig Moore<<>The “community of scientists” is many thousands of people. This is new
research, and some people will find it convincing and others will not, at
least until more research is done. That is the way science works.
I would note, however, that in his letter Mr. Hayes seems not to have
actually read the study or he would have a better understanding of how the
work was done, or at least he would have expressed it better in his
letter. He certainly is free to disagree with the conclusions.
But the article you cited also suggests some suspicions about the timing.
None of the paper’s authors had anything to do with when the paper was
published by Nature. However, it is the fact that the paper WAS published
Nature, one of the world’s leading journals for peer-reviewed research,
that made it newsworthy and prompted the issuance of a news release. This
is very common and there is nothing suspicious about it.
Vince
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Vince Stricherz, science writer
News and Information
Box 351207
University of Washington
Seattle, WA 98195
*********
http://www.uwnews.org
http://www.washington.edu
*********
Covering: Astronomy, atmospheric sciences, biology (and astrobiology),
chemistry, climate change, Earth and space sciences (seismology), physics.
Phone: (206) 543-2580
Fax: (206) 685-0658
e-mail: vinces@u.washington.edu<<<
Joel Shore (12:13:52) :
I lost you there Timā¦If I read the received and accepted dates correctly, this paper took almost a year to get accepted (although there whole thing is a bit confusing given that the publication data says ā2008ā³ when they clearly meant ā2009ā³). Where is this 56 days and +- two weeks predictability that you are talking about?
Furthermore, are you arguing that the authors would write up their work and then purposely sit on it to try to time it for some event?
Opps! You’re right about the dates.
Yes, I’ve seen papers withheld for various reasons. They used imagery up to 2006. Then:
By 2007, Steig finally had the 25 years’ worth of data he needed, and teamed up with Michael Mann at Pennsylvania State University, University Park.
A year for statistics, um well. Hope I have my dates right ;o).
Since “The Fear of God” losts its impact on people, the next best subject that people always felt uncertain and certainly vulnurable has always been about the weather, as far as we can go back in humanity’s history. Weather is the number one subject for people.
Having press releases saying that the Wrath of God has been seen on a Silver Ship around Jupiter and is heading this way would certainly not be catchy anymore nowadays but using weather related doom stories stikes a chord at our very soul and existence… and nobody is deaf at weather events because we all lived through bad weather and see what it can do. It’s a feeling related subject.
Anthony: Your comment that newspaper editors rarely publish input that is a verbatim extract from a blog does not apply to the Seattle Times. As a life-long resident of the Seattle area and ST reader, I guarantee you that none of the ST editors every read any blog like yours. They are well-known for their “don’t confuse me with facts” approach to journalism.
BBC Newsnight – Warming up President Obamaās inaugural speech?
http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2009/01/22/bbc-newsnight-warming-up-president-obama%E2%80%99s-inaugural-speech/
Perhaps Ross Hays isn’t a reader on this blog. Pity…he should be.
If it’s any help to solve the ongoing drama of his experience in Antarctica, here’s a newsletter of Lyndon State College (Vermont) from Nov 2006 at http://community.lyndonstate.edu/Default.aspx?tabid=1188
ALUM ROSS HAYS FORECASTS FOR NASA BALLOONS
The work of Ross Hays, who studied meteorology at LSC from 1982 to 1984, will appear as part of Discovery Science Channel documentary November 7 at 9:30 p.m. Hays forecasts weather for the NASA Columbia Scientific Balloon Facility and travels the world for the best atmospheric conditions.
These launch picture below was taken at Fort Sumner, New Mexico, where Hays and the team launched balloons with different science payloads for both colleges and NASA. Hays reports:
āWe have launch campaigns twice a year in New Mexico, during the time of the stratospheric wind turnaround . . . during the turnaround, many science groups like to launch so they can spend many hours at float with the winds light and variable. We also have a campaign in Antarctica every year . . . Last year was my first time to Antarctica. There are three launches planned with 40-million-cubic-foot balloons down there. The balloons reach float and circle the continent two to three times, with over 40 days at float.”
āMy next assignment is to the Arctic. We work with the Swedish Space Agency at Esrange, near Kiruna. In January JPL (Jet Propulsion Laboratory) wants to send payloads into the polar vortex for study. We also have a campaign each spring at Esrange, with the payloads crossing the Atlantic and being brought down in the Northwest Territories. We have future campaigns planned in Alice Springs, Australia, as well.”
[…]
I would infer “Last year was my first time to Antarctica” to have meant the SH summer starting in late 2005 (as Nov 2006 would be just beginning a new one). He describes it as a “campaign…every year”, but without his input, we wouldn’t know how many he personally participated in. Apparently, though it’s been at least two.
I posted on Real Climate, asking about the statistical significance of the findings, in view of the lack of accuracy in the measurements noted in the 2007 NASA press release.
The answer
“[Response: The 2-3 deg C uncertainty is an absolute error, it isnāt the same as the uncertainty in the trend (i.e. you can often tell that something has warmed much more accurately than you can tell itās absolute temperature). The WAIS temperature trend is estimated to be 0.17+/-0.06 deg C/dec (95% confidence) – so yes the changes are statistically significant. – gavin]”
I tried stats at school and found that lying under my desk and going “Wibble” made more sense.
So, statisticians, does the reply make sense?
Comment #53 is interesting http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/langswitch_lang/sk
as it asks what satellite coverage is used, noting problems with TLT and that RSS doesn’t include any information Polewars of 70 degrees.
No answer to that.
I must wander over to Tamino’s and see what abuse is heaped upon non-believers who question there, at least on RC no accusations of stupidity are levelled.
Let’s look at the real data again to see if it is warming in antartica, shall we!
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/VOSTOK.pdf
Remember way back a couple of weeks ago when sea ice was all the buzz? Wonder what happened to the warmies on that one… No I don’t, but still.
Simon’s question to Hays is absolutely fair. Skepticism never sleeps towards either side.
Adam, Schmidt’s answer is not quite to the point but essentially correct. A large number of imprecise measurements can lead to a more precise estimate of an average value or of a trend.
However, that requires presumptions about the uniform nature of the conditions all the measurements were made under. In general these presumptions are only approximately true, leading to unknown biases in the derived statistical results.
A separate issue which Schmidt appears to confuse matters with is that you may know relative temperatures more accurately than absolute temperatures.
Been reading this site for a few months now and just want to express appreciation to Anthony et al for the terrific job of presenting lots of truly “inconvenient truths.” Keep up the good work.
[thanks and sorry, snip, no more about cell phones]
The problem is preconcieved conclusion and people with low enough ethics and morals to only collect data that supports the conclusion they have. They are manipulating data. When they say that 2008 is in the top 10 warmest years, one has to question the data. When you do that, you have opened a very big can of worms. They are eliminating weather stations and data. Not good.
“Rain predicted every day until next Tuesday. Itās raining as I type this. If precip is inhibited, whatās the wet stuff running down my neck when I step outside? Why did I have to plow snow last month for the first time since Iāve lived here? These predictions of La Nina-caused drought make no sense.”
I’m talking about almost 3 weeks of no rain from Jan 2nd to Jan 20th. For Central Coast, that is very dry. Rain predicted till next monday up here, followed by at least 6 more days of guess what, sunny dry weather to end the month (hopefully the forecast changes). All in all, you’ re talking about 6-7 total wet days for January. Believe me, that’s dry for up here. We had decent rain ( and as you mentioned, cold temps) in december, but October, November were mostly dry. That leaves all the reservoirs pretty low for this time of year. I’m hoping the next few months bring some consistent rain.
>From what I can find, RSS is also on a NOAA-(x) sat, all of which appear to have that same 98.7 inclination (typical of sun-synch). RSS only seems to report data to -70 degrees, however they go to 82 degrees in the North.
The UAH data over the Antarctic is fictional. The weighting function peaks well below the surface. That is why RSS don’t have these “data”.
You won’t see this for long however as Anthony gags my comments – because I called him a denier for his publication of David Stockwell’s defamatory comments on Hansen.
Alan W (14:50:42),
Yes, but it’s an ad-hom question, intended to divert from the real issue. The question wasn’t a polite, “Mr. Hays, have you been to Antarctica more than once? It isn’t clear in your letter.” But, No-o-o. Hays must be lying, right? So let’s all chatter about putative lying liars and the lies they tell, and get distracted from the real issue. Such distraction is a tactic.
I disagree with the presumption that it is clear that Hays’ statement… āIn my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica the summer seasons have been getting colderā …means what Simon insists that it means. Maybe, and maybe not. So why the hostility over an admitted “implication.”
As I pointed out above, Mr. Hays’ statement: āIn my experience as a day to day forecaster that has to travel and do field work in Antarctica, the summer seasons have been getting colderā could have used that comma to make himself more clear. Also, Hays has stated that he is returning to Antarctica.
Why the ornery nit-picking of Hays’ statement? Obviously, to distract from the real issue: the empirical evidence that Antarctic is getting colder.
As Hays points out, “In the late 1980s helicopters were used to take our personnel to Williams Field from McMurdo Station due to the annual receding of the Ross Ice Shelf, but in the past few years the thaw has been limited and vehicles can continue to make the transition and drive on the ice. One climate note to pass along is December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station.” [my emphasis]
The crucial point is not the quibbling over whether Hays has gone to the Antarctic one time or several times. It is that real world evidence is presented that the Antarctic is getting colder.
Smokey, I didn’t read Simon that way at all. He asks for clarification of the basis for saying that the summer seasons are getting colder.
If it is not direct personal experience but simply the history Hays quotes in the statement, that is fine, but that clarification would be helpful in view of the easy inference from of his wording that he has visited Antarctica frequently.
I’m with Smokey on this one. I’m wondering if Simon expects each scientist to personally experience the temperature data for it to be considered reliable? Or is it okay to read other scientists recorded data and make some opinions from that?
For Lucy Skywalker…
Hi Lucy – Perhaps you could expand on why you celebrate the fact that the latest survey finds that the number of US voters disbelieving in manmade global warming has just tipped into an outright majority, 51%. given that The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/
Is uninformed opinion now to be elevated over the opposite? Where will that take us, I wonder?
In the repost, I notice that the antarctic temperatures seem to track closely to the solar cycle. This isn’t based more on eyeballing the graphs than any more sophisticated analysis.
http://sidc.oma.be/html/wolfmms.html
The expanded date range of the study manages to include the weakest solar cycle in the last five.
What is going on here. Only yesterday we had the report in the media about Antarctica supposedly warming (all with dodgy methodology). Today we have a new media report about the Seasons Changing. (From “Nature”).
See link to media article.
http://www.newsday.com/features/lifestyle/green/ny-green-climatechange,0,7900500.story
This same report was on the news media this morning in Australia.
So the question is: Who is orchestrating this?
Are all the media outlets on Earth getting their information from a few major distributing sources? The fact that such a report is in the US and Australia at synchronous times means either that there is an orchestrated scheme being planned to disseminate mis-information by some group or organisation OR there is a a key dissemination body that controls the media flow from one central body to the worlds disparate media outlets. It smacks to me of management.
If there is a management of these media reports all supporting AGW, is it that there is control of all the world’s media or do the world’s media only report what they are fed? The question is: What report will be next and to what end or purpose are these reports leading to?
Readers might be interested in listening to a radio interview of the paper’s authors Eric Steig and Drew Shindall including a question and answer session. It’s about an hour in length.
http://uwnews.org/relatedcontent/2009/January/rc_parentID46448_thisID46586.wma
John Philip, you don’t think the questions in that survey were just a teensy-weensy bit loaded in a brainless “have you stopped beating your wife” kind of way?
Try this article for context (and the previous blog it links to):
http://climatesci.org/2009/01/22/weblogs-by-my-coauthors-of-our-rejected-eos-forum-article/
Wouldn’t the opinions of authors actually cited by IPCC regarding the conclusions drawn from their field have been equally informed and interesting?
R John stated:
“Visible light that comes from an incandescent light bulb in your home puts out 10^6 more energy than your cell phone. Do you get ābakedā sitting under the light from this when you are reading a book?”
Try sticking that light bulb against your ear for about an hour!!!!!
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
You HAVE heard about the inverse square law haven’t you??
Nikck said:
“I think that the focus here should be on the sampling method rather than the broader discipline of quantitative analysis.”
It has to be on both. Will you allow people to make things up in ANY field??
NO!!
If the cooling of the 70’s over Antarctica is going to be blamed on the ozone hole, then the shrinkage globally of the upper atmosphere lately is going to be letting a lot of heat out of the planet, and deep cooling will be the result.
You can’t have it both ways.
But you sure can fool a lot of politicians who are eager to be spoon fed.
I listened to the interview with the “recent warming in Antartica has been reverse-modeled to make up for lack of stations” author who indicated in no uncertain terms that the ozone hole over Eastern Antarctica was to blame for the cooling there. You can find that on NPR (National Public Radio) with the interviewer reacting a bit skeptically.
John Philip (17:14:25) :
“The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.”
And, from what I read here and at other sites, you’d get about the same number here. The issue is whether that “role” is significant AND whether it is damaging or beneficial. These misleading strawman statements only serve to diminish anything else you have to say (right or wrong).
Now, are you defenders through with your obfuscation attack or do we have to keep listening to more unrelated comments?
Anyone who thinks this paper has any merits whatsoever has lost perspective. So, let me repeat myself. If a cherry picked starting date is REQUIRED to produce the papers conclusions then the paper is WORTHLESS. The fact that Dr. Mann put his name on the paper tells me he has lost perspective. It reeks of desperation and panic.
The ozone hole is actually right above Antarctica, so it’s not totally surprising.
If you’d like, check out my new blog:
http://theriverjordan.net/why-im-not-a-people-pleaser
Jordan.
Is this odd to anyone else? During the radio interview linked to above, Eric Steig replied to one question about the visible ice expansion in the Antartic, explaining that contrary to popularly held beliefs, the expansion is due to wind.
One or two questions later, he is blaming alleged increased temperature for the loss of ice and ice calving.
As I now understand it from Eric Steig, temperature does not cause ice, it’s the wind. But it’s the temperature that removes and softens the ice, not the wind.
And then while I am Googling to find information about the apparent contradiction I find this:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/03/winds-are-dominant-cause-of-greenland-and-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-losses/
An “inconvenient” truth about global warming is as follows:
Conventional thinking on recent ice ages, based on as they say “fossil
evidence”, says that continent size ice sheets advance and retreat on
40,000- and 100,000-year time scales. Imagine, some 18,000 years ago an
ice sheet over a mile thick covered Manhattan Island. To visualize that
imagine that four Empire State Buildings stacked one on top of the other
would still be covered in ice. There are boulders the size of 15 story building partially buried in Manhattan’s Central Park that were dragged from Canada and deposited there by the advancing ice.
So much water was held in ice that it is estimated that global sea levels dropped by over 350 feet! To visualize that, stand on any beach along the eastern coast of the US. On a clear day look out towards the sea as
far as the horizon – that is about 28 miles. During that last glacial period you would need to travel out another 40 miles out to see that same horizon! That last glacial period ended about ten thousand years ago. World temperatures then increased so much that by 6000 years ago, lions roamed as far north as Northern Europe and parts of Wisconsin and Minnesota resembled the dry hot savanna of today’s east Africa.
As far as I know, loins today make their home in Africa not Europe, and
Wisconsin is home to the holy Mecca of the National Football League,
also know as “the frozen tundra of Lambeau Field”. Since the worse
ecological damage humans could do 10,000 years ago (start a forest fire)
could not heat the planet, the real inconvenient truth about climate
change is that it will happen regardless of what anyone (or everyone)
does. Climate change is as inevitable as old age. A wise man plans for
the coming of his old age, rather than believing he can avoid it by
buying into the latest cure-all from a quick talking snake-oil sales man.
Richard M (19:53:18) :
John Philip (17:14:25) :
“āThe strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.ā
And, from what I read here and at other sites, youād get about the same number here. The issue is whether that āroleā is significant AND whether it is damaging or beneficial. These misleading strawman statements only serve to diminish anything else you have to say (right or wrong).
Now, are you defenders through with your obfuscation attack or do we have to keep listening to more unrelated comments?
Anyone who thinks this paper has any merits whatsoever has lost perspective. So, let me repeat myself. If a cherry picked starting date is REQUIRED to produce the papers conclusions then the paper is WORTHLESS. The fact that Dr. Mann put his name on the paper tells me he has lost perspective. It reeks of desperation and panic.”
Well said Richard M.
Antarctica: Still a Cool Place If You Don’t Mind The Cold. By Meteorologist Art Horn
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/VOSTOK.pdf
Recently I had a chance to question Mr. Mann at a talk he was giving in southwestern Connecticut. I asked him if he could explain how global average temperature had only gone up two out of the last seven decades even though eighty percent of all the carbon dioxide humans have put into the atmosphere has been since 1940? His response was that he disagreed with my figure of 80 percent since 1940, he said most of the carbon dioxide had been emitted in the last 15 years. He also was unaware that the global average temperature has only risen two of the last seven decades. He said that statement was simply not true. I can only guess he’s been looking at failed computer model forecasts and a broken hockey stick, not real data. It was quite stunning to hear his ignorance about the trend in temperature for the last seven decades.
Pork loins? Loin cloths?
Anthony, I don’t want you mad at me but, this is my field: A.S. in communication electronics. please google or wikipedia first LOL š
Links:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GSM_frequency_bands
http://www.gsmworld.com/roaming/gsminfo/cou_us.shtml
http://www.coveragemaps.com/gsmposter.htm
IMT-compliant 2100MHz band for 3G services (new, used mostly in big citys like Detroit )
” Also, since water molecules are sensitive to a particular band of microwave frequency, typically 2.45 gigahertz, which makes them resonate and thus āheat upā from the transference of energy from the microwaves.” (2.4gig is 2,400MHZ)
Your wattage is Way way off, the towers has 300 channels at 1-2 watts per channel with a tower as close to 10 miles apart this makes for some heating. 600 watts per sq mile 24/7 365…. that is only GSM we also have cdma, tdma, PCS and worst yet micro wave translators! these are thousands of watts. every TV station has at least two and usually more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_high_frequency#Television
# 2300ā2310 MHz: Amateur radio (ham – 13 cm band, lower segment)
# 2310ā2360 MHz: Satellite radio (Sirius and XM)
# 2390ā2450 MHz: Amateur radio (ham – 13 cm band, upper segment)
# 2400ā2483.5 MHz: ISM, IEEE 802.11, 802.11b, 802.11g Wireless LAN, IEEE 802.15.4, Bluetooth
# 2450 MHz: Microwave oven
one more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremely_high_frequency
“In particular, signals in the 57ā64 GHz region are subject to a resonance of the oxygen molecule” This heats oxygen! lol not that far from sat links up/down.
Tim
REPLY The wattage I wrote about was for the the handeld cellular devices, of which there millions. Low power 50 to 100 milliwatts. Even with the higher power transmitter towers and others you have cited, I don’t see much of a power signal compared to solar radiation. I just don’t think the amount of radio power we are dissipating into the atmosphere comes even close. – Anthony
the anticyclone that develops over the South Pole has been displaced and slow to establish itself over the past five seasons. The pattern in the troposphere has reflected this trend with more maritime (warmer) air
anticyclone that develops over the South Pole
reversed wind?
All we can say is that there is more heat in H2O and UHF transmitters than all of the CO2 in the air…. a must to think about.
Why just write to media outlets? Please – write to you local political represntative as well. Congressman, Member of Parliament, Senator – they all count the potential impact on votes. If you are cranky about poor journalism, let them know! If you are cranky about man made global warming being advertised as a done deal, let them know that too.
There are quite a few websites with posts blasting this particular article. Jennifer Marohasy at
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/modellers-remove-evidence-of-cooling-and-editor-removes-comment-by-climate-sceptic/
is another one.
Mr. Hays, by his own admission, seems have spent exactly ONE summer season in Antarctica.
http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2009/01/anthony-watts-knows-how-to-pick-em.htm#links
Another perspective:
In a 2007 survey of international earth scientists in academia and government research (primarily meteorologists, geologists and climatologists in various disciplines) 90% and 82% agreed, respectively, on the following two agreed on the following two questions:
1. have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels?
2. has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
see article on this study here: http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-01/uoia-ssa011609.php
(As an aside, it is important to note here that the term “global warming” is only partially accurate. The term “climate change” is a more accurate term for the various climate-related phonomena being reported by scientists around the globe, as this term best encompasses everything from droughts, to the frequency and severity of storms, to erratic weather patterns, to rising ocean temperatures, etc. as they appear *over long periods of time* affecting the entire planet — from Saharan Africa, to Antartica, to the eastern coast of the U.S., to eastern Europe…. )
Regarding the above-mentioned survey, the analysis found that climatologists showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role. Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 and 64 percent respectively believing in human involvement. Why the discrepancy?
Are we to believe that climatologists are stupid? Or that this profession has a vandetta against the fossil fuel industry? Or that they’re a bunch of tree-hugging hippies who like to run around crying, “The sky is falling!”? Or that they, perhaps, have stock in the solar panel industry?
One explanation is that meteorologists are concerned with shorter-term weather prediction (minutes, hours, days and weeks), while climatologists are concerned with longer time frames (month to month, season to season, year to year, decade to decade, century to century). Not to belittle meteorologists (my son-in-law is one), but comparing climatologists to meteorologists is much like comparing economists to stockbrokers, bankers or accountants.
It’s the little picture vs. the big picture: weather prediction vs. climate prediction. While there is much overlap between meteorology and climatology, there are distince differences in their fields of study and the methodologies inherent to each.
Meteorologists predict short-term weather by studying the dynamic and physical processes of the atmosphere. Climatologists predict long-term climate by these same processes, but in addition, they study these atmospheric processes AS THEY RELATE to the climate system (oceans, cryosphere, terrestrial biosphere). The actual science and the issues inherent to the studies and the methods used are immensely more complex than I or anyone could state in a few sentences. The bottom line is that, in the realm of science, it is the climatologists (not meteorologists) who are, as a rule, doing the actual work of studying LONG-term weather and climate patterns.
Conclusions about climate change cannot be drawn from one or even several seasons. This is why I can only groan when I read the antecdotal observation of individuals (“Geez! It’s cold as heck in our neck of the woods! I think global warming is a bunch of hooey!”) and certain scientists (“December 2006 was the coldest winter ever!”) who clearly lack either the knowledge or willingness to study, analyze and consider the validity of the models, methodology and conclusions from LONG-term climatology research before declaring their opinions.
In this vein, it bears mention that, according to his own blog, Ross Hays’ letter “from a meterologist on the ground in Antartica,” was written after he spent ONE southern summer in Antartica. Before this, he worked at CNN for 19 years. He found this job with NASA after networking with JobSeekers, a faith-based group, which helped him with his communication skills and with developing a positive atitude in the aspect of faith.
Returning to my analogy of stock traders/accountants/bankers vs. economists…. For the past 6 years, economists have been warning of the very economic collapse we are experiencing. They didn’t use a crystal ball, but instead took into account various factors, not the least of which were the deregulation of Wall Street and the removal of long-standing safeguards to the financial and banking industries. Their warnings only grew more dire with each year, even as Americans appeared to be riding the crest unprecedented and seemingly endless prosperity. In contrast, stockbrokers, bankers and accountants (and our leaders) spent the past 6 years extolling rosy predictions for our economic future. I liken Hays “letter from a meteorologist” to a Forbes article from 2006, in which they discussed the “robust” health Circuit City stock. Yesterday, they were the nation’s second largest electronics retailer. Today, they are liquidating. Again, the economists saw this coming from miles away.
And speaking of liquid, temperatures on the Antarctic Peninsula have risen 2.5Ā° C since the 1940s. Over the last 100 years the global sea level has risen by between 10 and 25 cm (between 4 to 10 inches). This may not sound like much to me or you, but to scientists who understand the relationship between the Ross Ice Shelf and the rest of the planet, it is cause for concern.
The reassurances of a former CNN meteorologist who spent a summer in Antartica, perusing random figures and drawing global conclusions from the temperature of “year x” or “decade y” reassure me of nothing except that this man has an opinion based on insufficient data. His opinion is, nonetheless, music to the ears of those determined, for whatever reasons, to deny the existence of climate change.
bigcitylib and canarypapers make the same ad hominem attack against the author.
As explained in the post @16:54:59, these ad hom attacks are a tactic intended to distract from the fact that the empirical evidence that Hays documented shows significant Antarctic cooling.
When the facts don’t support you, attack the messenger, right? How many seasons have you critics spent in Antarctica? Have either of you ever even been south of the Equator? South of Miami Beach? South of the Mason-Dixon line??
Ross Hays is real doing climate work, while you take ad hominem pot shots from the sidelines. Who do you suppose is more credible? Someone on the ground in Antarctica, or someone tapping a keyboard about ‘faith-based’ jobs?
A reconstruction based on ‘satellite’ data that starts in 1982 does not fare well when compared with the actual physical evidence. See this study:
Twentieth century Antarctic air temperature and snowfall simulations by IPCC climate models. Andrew Monaghan, David Bromwich, and David Schneider. Geophysical Research Letters, April 5, 2008
That shows that based on physical evidence there was only .2C warming for the century. Still looks like cherry picking made up information.
The esteemed Prof. Freeman Dyson puts things in perspective:
Since the greatest effect of CO2 is found in the Polar regions, and since that change is minuscule, it is not surprising that armchair scientists are tweaking their always-inaccurate computer models in an effort show as much Antarctic warming as possible. But despite all the model adjustments, the actual rate of Antarctic temperature change is extremely small, and well within normal, natural fluctuations.
That fact drives another nail into the coffin of AGW.
Smokey (16:54:59) :
Yes, but itās an ad-hom question, intended to divert from the real issue. The question wasnāt a polite, āMr. Hays, have you been to Antarctica more than once? It isnāt clear in your letter.ā But, No-o-o. Hays must be lying, right? So letās all chatter about putative lying liars and the lies they tell, and get distracted from the real issue. Such distraction is a tactic.
No, it was not an ad hominem question. It was a straightforward question asking how to understand the contradiction between two statements, and there was nothing impolite about it at all. It is entirely clear from the letter that Hays states experience of summer seasons plural, so your proposed alternative question would make no sense. I have made no statement that Mr Hays is a liar, nor any other statement in respect of his motivation. As for “the real issue”, clarifying factual matters is a real issue, it seems to me.
Why the ornery nit-picking of Haysā statement? Obviously, to distract from the real issue: the empirical evidence that Antarctic is getting colder.
This comment of yours, on the other hand, is self-evidently ad hominem, in that it imputes a cynical motive to me. It is also non-sensical, in that I have made perfectly clear in my post 07:55:08 above that it seems to me Steig’s paper would be wholly consistent with current cooling in the Antarctic, so far from distracting from that possibility, I have actually drawn attention to it!
April E. Coggins (17:13:01) :
Iām with Smokey on this one. Iām wondering if Simon expects each scientist to personally experience the temperature data for it to be considered reliable? Or is it okay to read other scientists recorded data and make some opinions from that?
Yes, of course, without question that is perfectly ok. However, in that case one would not refer to personal experience of those conditions. Ross Hays makes a statement of summer seasons getting colder as a judgment of personal experience. I think it is therefore relevant to ask what that experience amounts to and whether it really puts him in a position to make judgments of the seasonal trend on the basis of it. I would have no query at all with him referencing any trend in the recorded data.
niteowl (13:53:14) :
Thank you for the link to the newsletter. I agree with your conclusion from this account that Ross Hays’ first trip to the Antarctic would have been 2005/6. I do not understand the apparent inconsistencies in statements, so it is a pity that Mr Hays is not here to clarify.
Mr Hays is doing interesting, important and doubtless challenging work, and I wish him well in his new career. He is entitled to his view as to whether the Antarctic is warming or cooling, although I do not personally think he is entitled to impute questionable motives to others, as he does in his final paragraph. Regardless, I think it entirely reasonable to question the extent of his direct experience, which he presents as a basis for his judgment. It is evident that the matter of his direct experience is considered to be significant, as the title of the original post here shows. It is not ad hominem to question what that experience actually is, nor is it ad hominem to point out conflicting statemenst regarding it. Stating otherwise suggests an understanding of ‘ad hominem’ that I certainly don’t recognise.
It occurs to me that some posters here think it is important to question the factual basis of the work of Hansen or Mann, for example (and that some are evidently prepared to suggest that these scientists are fraudsters), but not to have questioned basic factual matters in a statement from someone whose position accords with theirs. Well, so be it.
Well, it wasnāt me who introduced opinion surveys into the thread, and canarypapers has covered most of what I wished to add. So I’ll be brief and confine myself to answering questions directed at me, then sign off this one.
The survey methodology is described here
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
Do I think the questions were designed to elicit a particular result? No I do not, they were framed and vetted by a reputable company and rigourous steps taken to ensure fair one-person-one-vote voting.
An invitation to participate in the survey was sent to 10,257 Earth scientists.The database was built from Keane and Martinez [2007], which lists all geosciences faculty at reporting academic institutions, along with researchers at state geologic surveys associated with local universities, and researchers at U.S. federal research facilities
More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had masterās degrees .. Approximately 5% of the respondents were climate scientists, and 8.5% of the respondents indicated that more than 50% of their peer-reviewed publications in the past 5 years have been on the subject of climate change
The key questions were what do you think has been the trend in global mean temperatures since 1880 and …Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
To this last question, 82% answered yes overall, and this figure rose to 97.4% amongst the climate science specialists, leading the author to conclude that It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes
Bye for now..
JP
REPLY: John, while I’m not going to get into it here, since it is way OT, I think you’ll find that survey seriously flawed. Yet the same people who denounce the Oregon petition don’t say a peep about it. I’ll have a thread on it in the future, so hold commentary for now. – Anthony
I’d like to add another perspective to this enlightening discussion. Let us assume, as has been hypothesized, that there is an intended correlation between the timing of this news release, with its revisionist news about Antarctic temperatures, and upcoming Public testimony by Gore et al. We can easily grasp that the paradox of “Global” warming with Antarctic cooling presents a PR problem for AGW. But there is an additional factor that I believe may be influencing the “science” here.
Consider that Svensmark’s theorem elegantly explains the above paradox. According to Svensmark, an increase in solar magnetosphere activity will produce the paradox. Over most of the globe, an increase in solar magnetic activity will produce warming by decreasing cloud cover. Over Antartica, however, the same decrease in cloud cover will produce a decrease in temperature. This is because clouds have a higher albedo than ocean and most continental masses, but a lower albedo than the highly reflective Antartic surface.
At the risk of appearing deeply cynical, I would submit that one reason this gossip is being leaked to the media at this very moment is to blunt the potential PR impact of Svensmark’s elegant and highly credible formulation.
Smokey (04:42:17) :
“bigcitylib and canarypapers make the same ad hominem attack against the author.”
I also noted these posters said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the article in question. These are more obfuscation attacks. Just once I’d like to hear one of these attackers say something about the actual paper.
Richard M (07:17:44) :
Smokey (04:42:17) :
ābigcitylib and canarypapers make the same ad hominem attack against the author.ā
I also noted these posters said ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the article in question. These are more obfuscation attacks. Just once Iād like to hear one of these attackers say something about the actual paper.
If you are including me as what you call an “attacker”, then I refer you to my post above at 07:55:08, where I reference the Steig et al paper extensively.
REPLY: Simon I think you read too much into it. The best policy is to ignore the excretive commentary of “bigcitylib”. This person has shown himself to be so inflammatory and so fixated on juvenile pursuits (look for posts on “boobs” and “bigfoot”) that I would say that he is the only blogger I know that is an active “troll” for his own blog. Let’s all leave him out of the discussion, as he is picoscopically irrelevant. – Anthony
canarypapers (04:26:10) :
His opinion is, nonetheless, music to the ears of those determined, for whatever reasons, to deny the existence of climate change.
Can’t you people come up with anything besides ad hominem and straw man arguments, appeals to “authority”, consensus, and red herrings, none of which prove a thing except the complete lack of any real science, or indeed logic? For the umpteenth time, nobody here “denies” climate change. The very fact that you feel the need to use the ad hominem “denier” label proves the irrationality and lack of scientific basis for your arguments.
Try this.
Science, not ideology. You might want to give it a try.
[snip, this personal attack, with profanity, violates site policy ]
The Pew Research Center has pulsed public opinion on top priorities. See: http://www.people-press.org/report/485/economy-top-policy-priority
Of the priorities listed, global warming was last.
Now with the $825B stimulus package including something like $400 million for more scientists to study climate change perhaps there is a disconnect in more ways than one. Above you will find the reply I received from the University of Washington. See comment: 13:30:46). The UW comment was far from convincing that the science was settled on which way the Antarctic trend was going.
(It has been suggested that seeking to clarify the authority of personal experience that Ross Hays calims for himself is somehow avoiding the ‘real issue’ of temperatures in the Antarctic. I would point out that I had previously written a long post responding in detail to Mr Hays’ points (07:55:08), but never mind, let’s return to that question).
Ross Hays states:
One climate note to pass along is December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station.
As has been pointed out elsewhere (some won’t like my source, I guess, but the data can be checked), the data record for McMurdo does not support this statement:
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/mcmdec.jpg?w=491&h=363
As can be seen, there are twelve colder Decembers on record for McMurdo, with a year as recent as 2002 being colder and the actual coldest on record being most of 2 degrees C colder than 2006. Also, the December trend for the whole period is warming.
So, if the ‘real issue’ is Hays’ statements on temperature data, then he is demonstrably in the wrong as above. I think it may well be that he is passing on impressions he has gathered from those within his organisation (and I don’t object to that in itself), for example in his reference to conditions in the 1980s. It can be seen that there were certainly some warm summers in that decade, with the record warmest December at McMurdo in 1987, though followed by the second record coolest in 1988. Inter-annual temperature variation is considerable, and thus I would suggest that one should be particularly cautious in presuming a trend from a short period.
I’ve collected key references about Antarctica’s temperatures, just to have the prime, simple refuting graphs and URL’s handy and clear. Especially the temp records from 8 Antarctic weather stations from Antarctic Temperature and Sea Ice Trends, the 2006 paper which concluded there has been cooling not warming.
I don’t want an ICE HOCKEY STICK!
By the way, if you don’t like the phrasing of the question…or whatever…in the survey that canarypapers linked to, there is another recent survey of scientists in the geophysical and meteorological sciences on climate change conducted by a respected polling organization and it reaches similar conclusions: http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html
In particular, they find:
(1) 97% believe āglobal average temperatures have increasedā during the past century; 84% believe that human-induced warming is occurring, with 74% saying that the ācurrently available scientific evidenceā substantiates its occurrence; only 5% believe that that human activity does not contribute to greenhouse warming.
(2) 41% of the scientists surveyed believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years; 44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous; and only 13% believe there is relatively little danger.
(3) Al Goreās documentary film āAn Inconvenient Truthā rates better than any traditional news source, with 64% rating it as either very (26%) or somewhat (38%) reliable. This is as opposed to Michael Crichtonās novel āState of Fear,ā which 1% or less rate as very reliable.
Sure, no survey is perfect…But this survey, if anything, is likely to underestimate the amount of support for the consensus view of the climate science community amongst actual climate scientists since the survey methodology presumably included members of the AMS who are meteorologists involved in weather forecasting, not climate science, and these folks are well-known to be, on the average, considerably more skeptical of AGW than the scientists actually working in the field. (The one other major downside of this survey that I see is that it does not seem to be possible to see the exact wording of their questions.)
[snip – I said I would not get into it here, yet you had to initiate a debate anyway, I’m not opening up another conversation. – Anthony]
Interesting link, Lucy. It’s a short paper, easy to understand, and it refutes the claim that polar temps are ramping up or down unnaturally. Polar temps are perfectly normal. As your PDF link points out, if CO2 was having an effect, it would show up at the poles first. But the temperature changes are less than in warmer latitudes. Another nail in the AGW coffin.
As your PDF link points out, if CO2 was having an effect, it would show up at the poles first. But the temperature changes are less than in warmer latitudes.
That is not true. Read the Steig et al paper. They find warming for the whole of the Antarctic which exceeds the warming for the Southern Hemisphere land area for the same period (Global Antarctica : 0.12Ā°C/dec. SH land anomaly for the same period is 0.116Ā°C/dec).
I prefer to side with Prof. Dyson. He is much more credible than Steig.
And see Lucy Skywalker’s PDFs. They don’t say what you are claiming.
I would say I agree with the moderator regarding bigcitylib. If you wish to partake of a delicious online self-destruction, spend a bit of time with Mark Steyn and “The Shagged Sheep” re: the big city lib.
Simon Evans (12:04:14) :
As your PDF link points out, if CO2 was having an effect, it would show up at the poles first. But the temperature changes are less than in warmer latitudes.
“That is not true.”
I note that you don’t say “I believe that not to be correct, based on Steig et all”, but a very categorical “that is not true” as if to say Smokey and Lucy are lying. And in bold font as well! It must be nice going through life so certain about things as the recent visitors to WUWT seem to be.
I prefer to side with Prof. Dyson. He is much more credible than Steig.
What on earth has Professor Dyson got to say about temperatures in the Antarctic?
And see Lucy Skywalkerās PDFs. They donāt say what you are claiming.
It’s not a matter of what I am ‘claiming’. This thread deals with a response to Steig et al’s paper (have you actually read it yet?). I am simply stating the facts of what they find, Your statement in this context, that “the temperature changes are less than in warmer latitudes” is simply not true. Yoiu can assert that Steig et al are wrong (whether or not you’ve read the paper), you can assert whatever you like, but I will clarify what the paper actually finds.
Neil Crafter (12:52:48) :
Simon Evans (12:04:14) :
As your PDF link points out, if CO2 was having an effect, it would show up at the poles first. But the temperature changes are less than in warmer latitudes.
āThat is not true.ā
I note that you donāt say āI believe that not to be correct, based on Steig et allā, but a very categorical āthat is not trueā as if to say Smokey and Lucy are lying. And in bold font as well! It must be nice going through life so certain about things as the recent visitors to WUWT seem to be.
I think you have misunderstood the nature of my statement. I am referring to what the Steig et al study found, therefore my statement is a matter of fact (see my previous post), not a matter of my judgment. You can check this out for yourself by reading the paper.
As ever, Christopher Booker has admirably summarised this sorry saga in the Sunday telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html
Not all in the UK believe the BBC.
I saw the following regarding Antarctic volcanoes. See: http://www.tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/volcanoes-and-antarctic-warming/
>>>…A couple of readers responded to news of a warming Antarctica by noting that West Antarctica, where the warming is most pronounced, is home to a number of volcanoes. (Itās basically the bottom segment of the Pacific Oceanās āring of fire.ā)
In addition to coming up with my own answer, I did ask the studyās authors. Eric Steig of the University of Washington replied:
Wow. Strange question.
Volcanoes under the ice canāt affect climate on the surface, 2 miles above!
To amplify that a little bit: The ice sheet covering West Antarctica, including its volcanoes, is about two miles thick. Also, Antarcticaās volcanoes do not appear particularly active at present.<<<<
Joel Shore:
“41% of the scientists surveyed believe global climate change will pose a very great danger to the earth in the next 50 to 100 years …”
I believe you Joel, which means 59% of these scientists do NOT believe there is a great danger to earth. I think the number is higher on the blog, but it’s nice to know the majority are in agreement with the skeptics.
This is essentially my position. I believe in AGW, but I do not believe anyone has proved CAGW. In fact, I believe the AGW will be beneficial to life on this planet. There may be a few partially flooded cities and relocations required but just think of what productive Canadian and Siberian extremes would mean to the overall production of food. Add in some additional precipitation in desert areas and the overall balance is likely to be positive.
BTW, this latter view is more inline with historical observations.
Phillip Bratby (13:44:58) :
As ever, Christopher Booker has admirably summarised this sorry saga in the Sunday telegraph at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html
Booker’s article is unmitigated rubbish. He obviously hasn’t read the paper, or if he has he hasn’t begun to understand it. Witness his assertion that the study is the product of a computer model – it is nothing of the sort. Read the paper yourself and you will discover that Booker is talking nonsense.
REPLY: So no computer processing was used at all in the preparation of the paper? no grids constructed, no data matrices? No output rendered onto a 3D dimensional topo map? Be very very careful how you respond Simon. – Anthony
Craig Moore (13:56:27) : quotes Eric Steig …
“Volcanoes under the ice canāt affect climate on the surface, 2 miles above!”
OTOH, volcanoes may impact the temperature of the ocean and the volcanoes are generally close to the coast. From what I remember of Part I the SSTs were warmer on the west side. This lack of attention to other factors that could influence the claims bothers me. It makes it all too obvious the result was the primary objective rather than real science.
Even if the volcanoes were not the cause the west side could be warmer simply due to the warmer waters with CO2 being a non-factor (or minor). While the article did not, in and of itself, claim AGW was the cause, the press releases made it obvious where the intent lay.
Craig Moore-
In response to the comments attributed to Eric Steig:
I do not know enough about Antarctic volcanoes to say if the volcanoes have any activity whatsoever, but the answer as quoted is non-responsive.
No one is claiming that the volcanoes affect climate. Rather, the volcanoes could affect temperature readings and change the elevation of the surface of the ice, all without any eruptions. Even quiescent volcanoes often have higher and variable heat flow at the surface, often through many miles of rock. Ice is just another rock to a geologist, so even if the volcano is limited to being “two miles” below the surface of ice, surface heat flows can be variable.
However, all this is speculation because the real issue is not being addressed: Is there heat flow and/or inflation/deflation coming from the volcanoes?
Incidentally, Wikipedia lists 34 “active and extinct” volcanoes in Antarctica. Of these, about 5 are listed as erupting in the last 1000 years (give or take a few), with one (Erebus) erupting in the last year. They even show a satellite photo of a lava lake in the crater! Other studies have suggested unseen active volcanoes below the surface of the ice; if they exist, we just don’t know how much their influence may be. It would certainly be a mistake to just dismiss the thought out of hand, without even looking at evidence!
Joel Shore says: “By the way, if you donāt like the phrasing of the questionā¦”.
Well, I liked the phrasing here:
Isn’t that what we would expect from believers, as opposed to thinkers? [BTW, I know of no one who disagrees that the climate gradually warms, and that it has done so since the LIA. And that it occasionally cools, too, sometimes for decades at a time. The climate fluctuates, and AGW is not the cause. So enough with the red herring that scientists don’t believe the planets is warming; it is the cause that is in dispute.] So let me write the poll questions, and I’ll get the answers I want, too.
And:
“…the consensus view…”
Please.
You have two choices: either dispense with the tired and discredited global warming is gonna getcha “consensus” meme [including this set-up poll], or explain exactly how the UN/IPCC’s 2,500 political appointees form your “consensus” — but that 31,000+ U.S. physical scientists do not. How does that work?
An honest way to determine a consensus [for those who believe that a consensus in science is necessary] is by a questionnaire, agreed to by leaders of both sides of the AGW-runaway global warming-climate catastrophe hypothesis [Lindzen, McIntyre, Ball vs Hansen, Man, Tamino, for instance]; provided to all rank-and-file members of each relevant professional organization, and assuring complete anonymity to the voter. But since the committees of most of these organizations have been hijacked [see here], you can be sure that neither the organization nor the AGW contingent would ever tolerate an anonymous, unbiased poll as described here. Because the result would cause monumental consternation to the AGW contingent, and public humiliation for the government climate “adjusters.”
Simon Evans (13:40:55) :
“I think you have misunderstood the nature of my statement. I am referring to what the Steig et al study found, therefore my statement is a matter of fact (see my previous post), not a matter of my judgment. You can check this out for yourself by reading the paper.”
No, I have not misunderstood your statement. You are working on the assumption that the Steig paper is correct and uses legitimate methods, and so your statement is a matter of judgement. There are others who think their methodology and findings are dubious. They can therefore just as readily claim “It is true” in response to your “It is not true”.
This is a recent discovery. For Steig to dismiss undersea volcanic activity out of hand indicates that he has reached a conclusion and is only interested in data that supports it.
Scott Gibson-
Thank you. What struck me odd about the claimed Steig comments about Antarctic volcanoes, is how off the mark they were. Not all of those vocanoes are 2 miles deep!!! The Mount Erebus picture graces this column. In my opinion if Steig actually said those things appearing in the NYT, that faux pas suggests the quality of his science.
So the only independently verifiable facts given to us by Ross Hays are that December 2006 was the coldest ever at McMurdo, and that McMurdo shows a cooling trend.
Turns out both of these are false.
Does this mean the credibility of the rest of his testimony is higher, or lower?
REPLY: Suggestion: You should exercise better care in citations. Your link will break shortly, it is temporary. And since I can’t tell from the temp file link whether GISS dataset1 or 2 was used, you assertion may be true or false, since none of use have any way of determining from your link if the data is the GISS adjusted or the GHCN data. Not many people here trust GISS anyway due to the adjustment issues. Perhaps a CRU citation would be better? – Anthony
I’m finding more and more pieces / papers that overturn Steig’s conclusions, and have added them to my page. Ole Humlum (2005) has a brilliant picture showing Antarctic temperature changes by location, decade, and season. This is a must. Also the 2008 Climate Models Overheat Antarctica
Here are a few points from a paper by Ellen Mosely-Thompson and Lonnie Thompson, about Antarctic Temperature records in 2003:
ICE CORE PALEOCLIMATE HISTORIES FROM THE ANTARCTIC PENINSULA:
WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Ellen Mosley-Thompson, Lonnie G. Thompson, Byrd Polar Research Center
It is essential to determine whether the strong 20th century warming in the Antarctic Peninsula (AP) reflects, in part, a response to anthropogenically driven, globally averaged warming or if it is consistent with past climate variability in the region. The necessary time perspective may be reconstructed from chemical and physical properties preserved in the regional ice cover and ocean sediments. Only three multi-century climate histories derived from ice cores in the AP region have been annually dated with good precision (Ā± 2 years per century). The longest record contains only 1200 years and the three histories do not provide a coherent picture of 20th century climate variability.
Temperature records for Antarctica are sparse and short with few extending prior to the International Geophysical Year (1957-58).
This is particularly true for the continental interior. The longest and most dense netĀwork of meteorological records is in the Antarctic Peninsula region where the temperature record at Orcadas (South Orkney Islands) extends to 1903.
King et al. [this volume] review the surface temperature records in the Peninsula that extend to the late 1940s and the upper air measurements that began in 1956. Their analyĀses demonstrate marked differences between the temperĀature trends in the AP and the rest of the continent (East and West Antarctica).
Jones et al. [1993] also noted that temperature variations in the AP region are poorly correĀlated with those on the main part of the continent and concluded that extending the Antarctic temperature record by using the longer temperature histories from the Peninsula would be inappropriate.
“The Plateau Remote (PR) record contains some longer-term (~century scale) oscillations with a brief (~3 decades), but strong cooling in the early 17th century.
Conditions remain at or above the long-term mean from 1660 to 1780 after which a gradual cooling trend persists until 1870 after which conditions warm rapidly, peaking at the turn of the 20th century. Since that time the Ī“18O record indicates a cooling trend to the present.
The PR Ī“18O record, like those from South Pole, does not show 20th century 18O enrichment (warming), [Mosley-Thompson, unpublished data]. Similarly, the recently published isotopic record from Berkner Island [Mulvaney et al., 2002] also does not show a 20th century warming.
Domack et al. [this volume] report their cores contain a Medieval Warm Period (1.15 ka to 0.7 ka), a Little Ice Age signal (0.7 ka to ~0.15 ka) and 200-year oscillations in the regional climate/oceanographic conditions.”
The pdf can be downloaded from this link:
http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Abstracts/Publications.html#pubs_2003
Craig Moore-
Agreed. That was why my response was a bit cagey, because i have to hope that the quote was either incomplete or not actually from Dr. Steig. If I knew him to actually have said it, I wouldn’t have been so polite! š
Richard M, Scott Gibson (and the rest of the volcano fans):
The heat released during a 2005 eruption of Mt. Erebus was estimated at 23.5 million watts.
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2008/pdf/1896.pdf.
Let’s go crazy and assume there are one hundred and twenty Mt. Erebus-size volcanoes hiding in West Antarctica; that’s a heat output of about 3,000 million Watts.
Let’s also assume that all the energy is going into heating the atmosphere (and not partially being transferred to latent heat as they melt the overlying ice). Let’s also assume that all these volcanoes suddenly went from inactive to active 50 years ago (at the beginning of the time period covered by Steigs study).
Eyeballing a map of Antarctica, West Antarctica looks to be about 1/5 of the continent, or about 3 million km2.
3,000 million watts/3 million km2 works out to 1,000 Watts/km2, or 0.001 Watts/m2.
Compare that 0.001 Watts/m2 to the forcing from solar, or GHGs, or ozone- it’s 3 orders of magnitude LESS.
Even under my extremely generous assumptions, the heat output from volcanoes is trivial compared to the other forcings.
Chris Vallance-
Thank you for the info. Do you suppose the nearness to and the longevity of the eruption might be relevant? Mount Erebus is a continuing boiling pot of lava from an active source.
Chris V.-
Perhaps I wasn’t completely clear, so I will simplify. A candle puts out very little heat, but if I hold my hand too close to the flame, I will be burned. As I said before, I am not saying volcanoes change climate, but they can certainly throw off measurements. The amount of heat volcanoes produce per square kilometer of Western Antarctica has no bearing in this.
Craig Moore-
Mt Erebus is one of four volcanoes that form Ross Island off of Western Antarctica. McMurdo Station, the largest “city” in Antarctica, is located on this island not far from Mt Erebus. It was located there because it has bare rock, and is a warmer area of Antarctica.
Given these facts, it is highly possible that McMurdo’s temperature record is contaminated with volcanic heat and the heat given off by man’s local activities. I would like to see a surfacestations.org – like audit of this station to see more about its “reliability.”
Incidentally, those who might say that this has no bearing on the paper being discussed, Hayes et al (2009) created the new data from the existing data, so it cannot be more reliable than the existing data.
Craig Moore (19:38:53) :
Has Mt. Erebus become increasingly active over the past 50 years? Are any of the temperature stations used in Steigs study near Mt. Erebus? If yes, do the temperature readings at that station track the volcanic activity at Mt. Erebus?
I would think that in a very cold place like Antarctica the warm air around the volcano would rise up into the atmosphere. How close, and how hot, does a volcano have to be to effect a temperature station a thousand feet, a mile, 10 miles away?
I have no idea whether Steig’s conclusions are right or wrong, but, without some actual evidence, the idea that the temperature readings are being effected by volcanic activity seems rather unrealistic to me.
Richard M says:
Yeah, but you left out the next part of the quote “44% rate climate change as moderately dangerous; and only 13% believe there is relatively little danger.”
So, your “little danger” (or even net positive) point of view would put you in a rather small minority.
Widespread and pervasive geothermal heat is often found in volcanic regions. For example, there have been no volcanic eruptions in the Yellowstone caldera within the last hundred years, yet there are geysers of boiling water scattered in an area of many square kilometers. The thermal activity varies with time and place over this large region.
The island of Hawaii is similar; although Puu O’o is the only volcano that has been erupting continuously for the last 20 or so years, there is a large and variable heat flow over a distance of more than 30 km. In fact, Kilauea Caldera had a recent breakout and may erupt at any time.
Hence, I would would never discount volcanic influence in a volcanic region without referring to a study which quantifies it. If no such study exists, I would say something to the effect of “assuming that volcanic heat flow is constant, my temperature reconstructions indicate that…” somewhere in my paper. Otherwise, the reader would have no idea whether I made an assumption or not, or whether I had considered the possibilty.
Scott Gibson (20:09:31) :
According to the abstract of Steig’s paper, warming is strongest west antarctica in the winter and spring.
The abstract also notes that there is autumn cooling trend in the east antarctic.
The seasonal nature of the changes (winter and spring warming/autumn cooling) does not support volcanic activity being responsible.
John Philip, as has already been pointed out, the survey questions don’t address the issues and many AGW sceptics would give the same answers as AGW enthusiasts.
This website itself has been instrumental in documenting and hilighting the impact of human activity on temperature via the urban heat island effects and land use changes.
Moreover the low response rate (30%) and self-selection of the participants invalidates any claim to strong conclusions from the results.
It seems inexcusable that the journal published this nonsense yet refused to publish Roger Pielke Snr’s investigation of whether scientists quoted by the IPCC report actually agreed with the treatment of their science by that report.
Chris V.-
Agreed, that observation does not support volcanic activity causing temperature variability. However, I distrust that observation because I don’t know if it is a model result or the actual temperature data. Did Steig indicate that anywhere in the paper?
A quick search for Western Antarctic climate data gave me maps showing current temperatures at several stations in Western Antarctica, but requires downloading large amounts of data in numerous files to get historical records. I didn’t see any photos. Since I didn’t find any data summaries, it may take a lot of time to study these results.
What about this?
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/21/world/21volcano.html?_r=2&refer=science
In an article published Sunday on the Web site of the journal Nature Geoscience, Hugh F. J. Corr and David G. Vaughan of the British Antarctic Survey report the identification of a layer of volcanic ash and glass shards frozen within an ice sheet in western Antarctica.
For Antarctica, āThis is the first time we have seen a volcano beneath the ice sheet punch a hole through the ice sheet,ā Dr. Vaughan said.
Heat from a volcano could still be melting ice and contributing to the thinning and speeding up of the Pine Island Glacier, which passes nearby, but Dr. Vaughan doubted that it could be affecting other glaciers in West Antarctica, which have also thinned in recent years. Most glaciologists, including Dr. Vaughan, say that warmer ocean water is the primary cause.
Neil Jones (07:55:54) :
No need to apologize. It was very funny to watch people start arguing about cell phone frequencies and the like.
If anyone believes cell phones are a source of significant heat energy, try this:
Cancel your home heating service.
Gather the family around your cell phone, turn it on, and cuddle.
Soon you will have to start throwing off the extra blankets from overheating you’ll all experience.
As an extra bonus, you can do all your night time reading by the light of the cell phone.
Then ask yourself, why don’t we solve the energy crisis by simply having everyone power the house with their cell phone?
I know he’s a totem of hate, but would anyone like to offer some intelligent comments on Tamino’s post?
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2009/01/23/antarctica-warming/
It hardly puts Hays in a good light. Is he going to submit a rebuttal of Steig’s paper to Nature, or was his letter just bombast?
Thanks for the advice on data citation, however it matters not which dataset is used, I checked against the unadjusted GHCN record for McMurdo and despite his local knowledge Mr Hays is simply wrong, December 2006 is nowhere near the coldest on record, in fact it is only 1C below the average for December.
Alan Wilkinson: I see no point in repeating the EOS survey questions and answers. They are what they are, and to me seem perfectly reasonable. Moreover the low response rate (30%) and self-selection of the participants invalidates any claim to strong conclusions from the results.
It seems inexcusable that the journal published this nonsense yet refused to publish Roger Pielke Snrās investigation of whether scientists quoted by the IPCC report actually agreed with the treatment of their science by that report.
If you are referring to this survey:- http://www.jamstec.go.jp/frsgc/research/d5/jdannan/survey.pdf
the methodology was similar but the response rate there was just 8%, so presumably the conclusions [in brief that most agreed with the IPCC, with significant equally-sized minorities believing they underestimated and overestimated the role of CO2 respectively] have even less authority? š
Lucy Skywalker (18:19:27) links to a 2008 study entitled: Climate Models Overheat Antarctica. It is a worthy read as it seems to contradict the modeled projections in the Steig study. Anyone care to reconcile the two “polar” opposites?
Simon Evans (14:09:19) :
…………………….
REPLY: So no computer processing was used at all in the preparation of the paper? no grids constructed, no data matrices? No output rendered onto a 3D dimensional topo map? Be very very careful how you respond Simon. – Anthony
I do realise that they have used computing, Anthony, but their results are not generated from modeling a system. I don’t know what you mean by your last sentence – perhaps we are in dispute as to what computer modeling is?
Neil Crafter (16:11:13) :
Simon Evans (13:40:55) :
āI think you have misunderstood the nature of my statement. I am referring to what the Steig et al study found, therefore my statement is a matter of fact (see my previous post), not a matter of my judgment. You can check this out for yourself by reading the paper.ā
No, I have not misunderstood your statement. You are working on the assumption that the Steig paper is correct and uses legitimate methods, and so your statement is a matter of judgement. There are others who think their methodology and findings are dubious. They can therefore just as readily claim āIt is trueā in response to your āIt is not trueā.
No, Neil, I am not working on that assumption .I’ve actually stated on the other thread regarding this paper that I think it wise to view these results with caution at this stage, just as one should view any data relating to the Antarctic in particular with caution. It’s a new approach, other scientists will review it, further work will be done which will either extend, refine or refute it. That remains to be seen. I’m finding it pretty amusing that some seem to think MSU satellite data for the Antarctic is rock solid (as if we didn’t know the problems with MSU readings for that region) whilst this paper’s findings can be rejected out of hand even without actually bothering to read it (as some have made clear when expressing their judgments), so I’m not giving much weight to that level of ‘review’. I have stated that, as a matter of fact, the Steig paper finds a warming for Antarctica that actually exceeds the warming for SH land area. That is the truth of the matter, and it remains true even if you or others think that the paper might be hogwash. Whether or not my meaning was clear before, I trust that it is clear now.
John Philip (16:56:30) :
So the only independently verifiable facts given to us by Ross Hays are that December 2006 was the coldest ever at McMurdo, and that McMurdo shows a cooling trend.
Turns out both of these are false.
Does this mean the credibility of the rest of his testimony is higher, or lower?
REPLY: Suggestion: You should exercise better care in citations. Your link will break shortly, it is temporary. And since I canāt tell from the temp file link whether GISS dataset1 or 2 was used, you assertion may be true or false, since none of use have any way of determining from your link if the data is the GISS adjusted or the GHCN data. Not many people here trust GISS anyway due to the adjustment issues. Perhaps a CRU citation would be better? – Anthony
The SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research) McMurdo temperature data is here:
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/McMurdo.All.temperature.html
As can be seen, Ross Hays’ statements are not supported by the data.
Scott Gibson (22:25:25) :
I haven’t read the paper, but a post by the author over at Realclimate says the temperatures were determined from surface stations and satellite data.
anna v (03:41:57) :
The volcanic eruption mentioned in the NYT article you linked happened in 325 BC.
If there are still volcanoes erupting under the ice, how much heat are they producing, and how much of that heat actually makes it to the surface?
If you think volcanoes might be heating the atmosphere, you can go back to my calculations a dozen or so posts back to see that the heat potentially produced by volcanoes is trivial, compared to all the other forcings.
If you think volcanoes (under hundreds-thousands of feet of ice!) might be affecting just local temps around the surface stations, you need to provide some heat-flow calculations that show that it is even physically possible!
Undersea volcanoes may indeed be a trivial forcing, perhaps as trivial as CO2.
The temperature taken right at the South Pole shows a definite cooling trend: click1
And the trend gives us nothing to worry about: click2
Since CO2 forcing shows up at the Poles first, and to the greatest extent, the conclusion is inescapable: the CO2/runaway global warming hypothesis has been falsified once again. And the general public is beginning to understand: click
Chris V. (08:01:52) :
Scott Gibson (22:25:25) :
I havenāt read the paper, but a post by the author over at Realclimate says the temperatures were determined from surface stations and satellite data.
Indeed they did, they used passive infrared brightness measurements (TIR) of surface temperature from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer, a satellite of the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. MSU isn’t the only satellite and it isn’t appropriate for use over the Antarctic.
A Blast of sanity?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4332784/Despite-the-hot-air-the-Antarctic-is-not-warming-up.html
Simon Evans (07:46:17) :
I’m rather confused Simon, is Steig’s paper correct or not correct? Your responses are quite contradictory.
Possibly a retrospective look at this WUWT column is in order: www. wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/03/winds-are-dominant-cause-of-greenland-and-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-losses/
Thank you Ceolfrith (11:52:13) for posting that link, which mentions:
Some folks here might have a problem with the word ‘often’, but otherwise the article is an excellent rebuttal to the claim that the Antarctic is warming.
The comments section was especially interesting. One comment reports on Jack Kemp’s testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives in 1999:
All in all, a great read.
Eric Anderson (21:24:50) :
Is this really anecdotal evidence, or is it a statement based on actual December temperatures at McMurdo? Should be easy enough to verify.
From gistemp.txt, you can try the data used by GISS (not produced by them at:
Sources
——-
GHCN = Global Historical Climate Network (NOAA)
USHCN = US Historical Climate Network (NOAA)
SCAR = Scientific Committee on Arctic Research
Basic data set: GHCN – ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ghcn/v2
v2.mean.Z (data file)
v2.temperature.inv.Z (station information file)
For US: USHCN – ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn
hcn_doe_mean_data.Z
station_inventory
For Antarctica: SCAR – http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/surface/stationpt.html
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/temperature.html
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/READER/aws/awspt.html
For Hohenpeissenberg – http://members.lycos.nl/ErrenWijlens/co2/t_hohenpeissenberg_200306.txt
complete record for this rural station
(thanks to Hans Erren who reported it to GISS on July 16, 2003)
Neil Crafter (13:18:10) :
Simon Evans (07:46:17) :
Iām rather confused Simon, is Steigās paper correct or not correct? Your responses are quite contradictory.
‘Correct’ is an absolute word. I think it may be that their analysis offers a better assessment of temperature trend over the period than we had before (though I reserve my judgment on that – further work will be done in this field, and levels of confidence will develop). By the same token, I don’t think UAH is ‘correct’ any more than RSS is ‘correct’ – clearly they can’t both be right, since they report different figures generated from the same raw observations.
My main interest on this thread has been to pin down a few matters of fact, which actually have little to do with my view on the status of the paper.
I’m sorry if my statements have seemed to you to be contradictory – I certainly wasn’t aware of that, and hope that I have clarified my view.
Why would Steig’s assessment be any better than this: http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2008/antarctica.jsp
Notice the map with the warming in the west but cooling over much of the rest of the continent.
Thanks for a very good link, Craig Moore. The graphic in the article puts the size of the warmer area in better perspective: click
Craig/Smokey:
The study that Craig linked to doesn’t seriously disagree with Steig’s; that image covers a different time period.
Steig discusses his results here:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2009/01/state-of-antarctica-red-or-blue/
Chris Vallance-
Isn’t it possible that the last 35 years which show a cooling trend over the vast majority of Antarctica the most relevant to consider?
John Philip, yes, that is a fair assessment. Neither have any statistical authority.
Craig Moore (18:35:35) :
Steig also finds a slight cooling over the past 35 years in E. Antarctica, but he also finds a lot more warming in W. Antarctica, so the trend for the continent as a whole is warming.
I would think that the results for continent as a whole would be most relevant.
PS- Why do you keep calling me Chris Vallance?
The supplementary information section of the paper reveals how they processed the satellite data. They looked at the daily data, assuming that any deviation of the mean temperature of greater than 10 degrees C was actually contaminated with clouds, and then removed that data. I didn’t see any explanation of what they replaced the tossed data with, but clearly there is the possibility their technique preferentially removed cold days from the record.
Scott Gibson (23:42:43) :
The Antarctic night lasts half a year. Clouds re-radiate heat back to the ground at night, so the removal of extremely cloudy days would remove warmer days from the record for half the year.
Chris, I sincerely disagree with your opinion. There is such a vast difference between continental warming west of the mountains and cooling east of the mountains. To homogenize the two results and proclaim a temperature direction for the whole of the continent is misleading in my opinion. Also, the 50 year time period selected by Steig is just as misleading where it obscures the cooling direction over the past 35 years. My point being it is better just to lay out the facts without drawing significance to arbitrary averages and time periods that tend to fit an answer into a predetermined theory. Look at the press release from the U of W. Just my humble opinion.
Anthony, what is the basis for Ross Hay’s statement: “December 2006 was the coldest December ever for McMurdo Station”? When was it lower than -81C?
REPLY: I don’t know, perhaps he’s got some inside information we don’t know about. It would seem odd to me, that a person familiar with the working of the press and science (having been a meteorologist for CNN and working in a science facility) would make such a statement, knowing that it could easily be refuted, if he didn’t have some basis for it. – Anthony
Agreed. Tamino, however, challenged the claim using a graph indicating the McMurdo temperature for December was -60C and nowhere near the lowest December temperatures. Tamino appears to be using a monthly mean temperature. Daily minimum temperatures have been at least as low as -81C in 1977 according to HADCRU. Perhaps Ross can shed some light on Tamino’s challenge of Ross’s comment?
REPLY: I’ll ask. Being a balloon met, he may have been referring to any level of the atmosphere and just didn’t qualify his comment well. Most of our discussion has been “grounded” so to speak, on surface data. – Anthony
Craig Moore (07:00:53) :
It sounds like your complaint is more with the press release than the paper.
You can read Steig’s description of his results, and get the abstract, over at Realclimate.
Steig gives results for the past 50 years and 35 years, for E and W Antarctica individually, and for the continent as a whole.
Chris, they are inseparable coming from the same academic institution. Dr. Steig is responsible for the representation of his work.
I just discovered that ClimateAudit raises a similar concern to mine regarding Dr. Steig being responsible for the representation of his work. See: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=4945
Chris V–
Most of my concern is that they say they removed data, without saying what they replaced it with. I would be skeptical of any such removal of data, regardless of whether it would warm or cool the data. Since they indicate their biases toward warming in past papers, I suspect that they would have been more likely to catch cooling influences than warming. (Note: I am not accusing them of lying, rather I am accusing them of bias, something we all have. It is difficult for most of us to avoid being trapped by our biases).
“Clouds re-radiate heat back to the ground at night…”
This may often be true, but one look at the Siberian weather stations shows that it may not always be true. They have a condition where ice fog forms during their dark winter, and the temperature becomes dreadfully cold. I don’t know if this occurs in Antarctica, and Steig et al (2008) don’t seem to discuss what happens under the clouds in their paper.
Well, one issue is that RegEM introduces a slight warming bias. Sort of sound familer with the results. Also
Chris V: The RC post says that 35-45 was the warmest temperatures for the century. Why is the short warming period from 58 to 69 more important than the cooling from 45 to 58 or the cooling from 69 to present?
The problem with the paper for me is the use of a process that is known to introduce a warming bias (that may not be an issue for the AWG crowd) and cherry picking a start point that give the trend that supports your position.
Oh, and I did ask Dr. Steig about this at RC and they declined to post it or answer it. I did cite the works that determined that there was a warming bias.
Eric Steig says ..
.. but if you follow the link in the story, you find ..
Vernon-
Thank you for your effort at RC, and important questions put to Chris V.
Yeah, well I’m just a fish biologist and reporter with an environmental bog of my own, but I know this is bullshit you two are peddling. When it comes to part time and ex-weather announcers and skepticism of global warming, it seems to go hand in hand. Try this assessment on for size: Amateurs on location are still amateurs. Take a class. Get a clue. Best science blog. LOL!
REPLY: “environmental bog” ? Mark, you might want to read this, and then rephrase:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
Anthony Watts
After perusing the diatribes posted here by the owner I can safely say this is the realm of a scientifically ignorant wingnut. Just another conservative nutbag in the death throws of flat-earthdom. It’s laughable, if not sad. Ignorance always is.
REPLY: Thanks for your illuminating labels and opinion. No comment then on this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
I recognize typos Watts. Sometimes belatedly, and technologically uncorrectable. Can you, without formulating a new faux theory?
REPLY: I can recognize lots of things, rage for example, in the guise of perfection. – Anthony
Let’s see, Hansen or Watts in Chico, CA? That’s a toughfie.
REPLY: Still no comment then on this?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/27/james-hansens-former-nasa-supervisor-declares-himself-a-skeptic-says-hansen-embarrassed-nasa-was-never-muzzled/
FWIW, Anthony, Mark A. York has been banned by Patterico and many other blogs for his “abusive” behavior. Perhaps he would care to take this new opportuity to engage in constructive discussion, instead of destructive trolling and invective? Would a fish biologist care to contribute a site survey for a Montana HCN station?
I come back to my previous thought that Dr Steig is responsible for the representation of his work. Both his paper and the press release linked in the column come from the UW. Perhaps a clarifying press release from the same source is in order. The ongoing discussion over at Climate Audit has been eye opening. Draw your own conclusions on the substance of the criticism and defense.
The data showed cooling so they used “statistical techniques” to get a “new estimate”. I would think that would be all that needs to be said. If you still think it is likely to have anything to do with reality after that than I am afraid there is very little hope for you.
I see Mr. Watts’ original post complained the authors did check the hypothesis that volcanoes had heated up the atmosphere in the West Antarctica. This hypothesis is easily disproved…
Check out the NY Times blog Tierney Lab that several posters show how ridiculous this claim is:
http://tierneylab.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/volcanoes-and-antarctic-warming/
Interesting… Just last year there was a bunch of nonsense pushed by pseduo-pretend ‘scientist’ bloggers that the Arctic ice cap was being melted by volcanoes. It was widely picked up by the right wing news media types.
They ended up with egg on their faces.
Interesting that Mr. Watts has attempted the same propaganda technique to explain the Antarctic atmospheric (!!!!) warming this year. At the same time, Mr. Watts is claiming in this blog post that the Antarctic isn’t warming.
Well, which is it? Is the Antarctic warming or not? And does Mr. Watts believe that volcanoes is responsible for the warming over the last 50 years?
REPLY: The satellite sensor used in the study is an AVHRR. The differences measured are minute. So tell me then, what happens to heat from a volcanically active area? Where does it go? And can you see such things from space using a satellite platform?
Well it appears you can, see this peer reviewed paper: http://www.terrapub.co.jp/journals/EPS/pdf/2002/5403/54030211.pdf They used LANDSAT for this one.
here’s another: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/10/041005071329.htm
Granted these are near surface events, and the West Antarctica volcanic area is mostly beneath the ice. But then, we also don’t know what it looks like beneath that ice and what sort of activity is going on, or to what extent those areas are releasing heat or not. It has not been mapped. And, like the two examples above, the only way heat leaves our planet is as longwave IR to space, be it heat from the sun (shortwave to longwave conversion by ground heating) or from magma sources. It all goes “up” to space eventually. Heat will migrate through ice also, it doesn’t have to melt the ice, only to change it’s temperature. With the AVHRR looking at that area, where does that volcanic heat dissipate to? Does it go to the oceans, and none is transferred to the ice above at all? Is it split 50/50, does most of it go directly upwards, eventually to be radiated into space as LWIR? I think these are valid questions.
It is important to note, that in this study (as I understand it) the AVHRR is measuring the surface skin temperature, not the air temperature. It is looking at the radiative value of the land surface.
So the valid question to ask yourself in this Antarctica paper is: I’m looking at satellite data of an IR sensor trained on a known volcanically active region of the planet. Have I fully excluded the possibility that any portion of that data is a part of that region’s volcanic heat? Since the paper made no mention of it, I’ll have to assume they did not even consider it. Science is mostly about excluding other possibilities. What you are left with then is (hopefully) the truth of the matter. If they can show me how they excluded the possibility from the paper, I’ll be happy to post a new story about it.
– Anthony
It seems Dr. Steig feels he has received unfair treatment. See: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2009/01/led-author-of-antarctic-warming-paper-claims-libel/
In my opinion, Dr. Steig shoud embrace the opportunity to demonstrate the strength of his science.
Paul K:
Paul, you should brush up on your geography. The Antarctic peninsula that has warmed is connected by the same tectonic plate to Tierra del Fuego [Land of Fire, get
it?]: click
If you use your noggin, Paul, you will see that volcanic activity occurs along the edges of tectonic plates. Is it so hard to understand that the same process that causes volcanic activity in Tierra del Fuego also causes volcanic activity in the attached Antarctic peninsula?
It has nothing to do with CO2 or AGW. The simplest explanation is almost always the correct explanation: if the “Land of Fire” less than 500 miles away has lots of volcanoes, it’s very likely that the peninsula in question has the same volcanic influence.