Just a little something he threw together
Guest Post by David Middleton
First the breath-taking headlines…
- Scientists Report Faster Warming in Antarctica, New York Times (WUWT commentary)
- West Antarctic Ice Sheet warming twice earlier estimate, BBC
- West Antarctica warming much faster than previously believed, study finds, NBC
- Western Antarctica is warming three times faster than the rest of the world, Grist
Oh noes out the wazzoo!!!
What could possibly have caused such an out-pouring of Mr. Bill impersonations?
Apparently this did…
Central West Antarctica among the most rapidly warming regions on Earth
David H. Bromwich,1, 5 Julien P. Nicolas,5, 1 Andrew J. Monaghan,2 Matthew A. Lazzara,3 Linda M. Keller,4 George A. Weidner4 & Aaron B. Wilson1
Nature Geoscience Year published: (2012) doi:10.1038/ngeo1671
Received02 May 2012 Accepted15 November 2012 Published online23 December 2012
Abstract
There is clear evidence that the West Antarctic Ice Sheet is contributing to sea-level rise. In contrast, West Antarctic temperature changes in recent decades remain uncertain. West Antarctica has probably warmed since the 1950s, but there is disagreement regarding the magnitude, seasonality and spatial extent of this warming. This is primarily because long-term near-surface temperature observations are restricted to Byrd Station in central West Antarctica, a data set with substantial gaps. Here, we present a complete temperature record for Byrd Station, in which observations have been corrected, and gaps have been filled using global reanalysis data and spatial interpolation. The record reveals a linear increase in annual temperature between 1958 and 2010 by 2.4±1.2 °C, establishing central West Antarctica as one of the fastest-warming regions globally.
[…]
The manufactured “record reveals a linear increase in annual temperature between 1958 and 2010 by 2.4±1.2 °C.” That’s a 50% margin of error on the reconstruction that supposedly corrected the recording errors.
I haven’t purchased access to the paper (nor do I intend to); however, the freely available supplementary information includes a graph of their reconstructed temperature record for Byrd Station. It looks very similar to the NASA-GISS graph that doesn’t show any significant recent warming trend.
The NASA-GISS data (GHCN & SCAR) for Byrd Station are in two segments: 1957-1975 and 1980-2012. The 1957-1975 series depicts a moderately significant (R² = 0.19) warming trend of about 1.0 °C per decade. The post-1980 series depicts a statistically insignificant (R² = 0.01) trend of 0.3 °C per decade.
Bromwich et al., 2012 get their 2.4 °C of warming from 1958-2010 (0.4 °C per decade) by stitching together the fragmented data sets. If I just combine the two NASA-GISS series, I get a trend of about 0.4 °C per decade…
But, almost all of that warming took place before 1988. And Byrd Station has seen no warming (actually a slight cooling) since 1991.
Furthermore, the corrected temperature record of Bromwich et al., 2012 appears to actually depict more cooling since 1991 than the uncorrected data…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Bunkum. First mistake: One data point. Further mistakes: Filling in the gaps with outright fabrications. How this ever passed [strike]peer[/strike] pal review….oh never mind. Undisguised alarmist glitzerature.
Sorry but what did you expect? The truth? The truth does not put food on the table.
Now we can see, There is more science in the wierd-tip ads that in some peer-reviewed articles. The Mayans were right.
Looks like a good opportunity for someone in the UK to register a formal complaint to the BBC for not researching their stories properly…
Here’s the retraction and apology from the BBC:
“Our most sincere apologies to all those we may have misled by the article on historical temperatures from the Byrd station in western Antarctica.
Our headlines may have suggested unusual warming in western Antarctica which may have alarmed some readers, when in fact there was little or no warming. It is not the BBC’s task to investigate obvious data manipulation, as occurred here, but to always accept the results of peer reviewed publications at face value.
It is BBC policy to always publish corrections, especially on the sensitive subject of climate change, where we often make mistakes simply because we never read, or understood, the original source material. The BBC is here to inform and not alarm, to educate and not mislead, and as such we have internal directives forbidding the publication and distribution of any and all unfounded news stories designed to alarm the uninformed general public.”
Sarc off/
Nature Geoscience -what a joke mag. Does anyone know if there is a list of science publications which have reliable quality control on what they publish? Please advise.
You just can not trust real data. It might give the wrong impression.
“in which observations have been corrected”
are these people related to Hansen ??.. blood brothers, whatever ???
sorry, but how the **** do they know the observations were wrong, and which direction to “correct” (lol) them ???????
WUWT sorted this out within 24 hours of the BBC scare story…well done Anthony. All we need is a msm report to back it up. I have contacted two UK daily’s…no sign of the correction just yet but we live in hope. After all the Mail did publish the MET Ofiice graph showing a lack of warmig for the last 15 years.
“The fact that temperatures are rising in the summer means there’s a prospect of WAIS not only being melted from the bottom as we know it is today, but in future it looks probable that it will be melting from the top as well,” he said.
Can someone tell me if this is even physically possible? What is the ambient temperature in the Antarctic, even with “rising” summer temperatures?
“Here, we present a complete temperature record for Byrd Station, in which observations have been corrected, and gaps have been filled using global reanalysis data and spatial interpolation.”
“observations have been corrected” = actual measurements have been replaced by made-up values that look better.,
“gaps have been filled using global reanalysis data and spatial interpolation” = we guessed some numbers where measurements were missing.
Science?
The truth does not put food on the table.
Oh, but it does. For the daisies.
Two events in the Antarctic that a climate scientist should consider:
– Solar activity and the Antarctic’s magnetic field move in synchronism but in a counter-phase (solar up – Antarctic down and vice versa)
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AntarcticSunEarthLink.htm
– Circumpolar current – by far the world’s strongest ocean current. Its waters and the atmosphere have an 8 year temperature cycle) ACW-Antarctic circumpolar This wave propagates westward against the current but ultimately ends up travelling eastward, due to the massive size of the ACC, at a slower rate than the mean flow. The wave circles the earth every eight to nine years (White and Peterson, 1996). It has a long wavelength (wavenumber=2) resulting in two crests and two troughs at any given time. The crests and troughs are associated with massive patches or pools of warm water and cold water respectively. The areas can be thousands of kilometers long. The warm patches are 2 to 3°C warmer than the mean sea surface temperature (SST) and the cold patches are 2 to 3°C cooler than the mean SST.
http://www.spacedaily.com/images/antarctic-circumpolar-wave-bg.jpg
It definitely is not science it is conjuring. They should apply to join “The Magic Circle”
Even Tom Curtis at unSkeptical pseudoScience and Wiki-Weasel Connelley at his Stoat blog have been sufficently embarrassed to call foul on this alarmist “Christmas Special” Especially the misleading press release with the falsely captioned figure – and the BBC’s slavish falling for it hook line & sinker.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/West-Antarctica-warming-more-than-expected_NCAR.html#88891
http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/12/25/you-cant-blog-on-christmas-day/
Nevertheless – it did the trick with the mainstream media Christmas news scheduled as planned.
Mission accomplished.
They could have published a compendium of incontrovertible proof that cagw was not occurring and as long as the headline said Worse than we thought the media would have gone full on OH Noes.
Has Joelle Gergis spawned?
This is like a mad re-run of the ‘Boys from Brazil’.
Sorry I could not say anything about the science of this paper. There wasn’t any!
Did anyone already plug the Bromwich et al 2012 Byrd data into the O’Donnell et al 2010 Antarctic reconstruction program ?
http://www.climateaudit.info/data/odonnell/
It would be interesting to see if the O’Donnell conclusions still hold after this much more accurate Byrd station temperature record reconstruction.
After all, O’Donnell et al’s own reconstruction at Byrd was highly questionable, since it was based upon temperature trends from stations a 1000 km away across the Ross sea, which arguably have next to nothing to do with the temperature trends at Byrd.
Peer reviewed?
Poor Middleton thinks its Ice Age 🙂
Looking at the last graph struck me something that companies with corrupt executive suite typically do — namely — if a bad quarter is imminent then might as well dump all accounting shenanigan one had been carrying on the books into that quarter; and take the beating on the stock price and get it out there.
In this paper, it seems since the global temperatures have barely budged in the last 16 years, might as well take whatever little heating we have had and put it in the previous decades and then wait for a paper to come along to “explain” the lack of warming caused by CO2 or some such. Or wait for the warming to start again and note its presence and ignore recent history.
Here, we present a complete
temperaturerecord forByrd Stationour bank account, in which observations have been corrected, and gaps have been filled using global reanalysis data and spatial interpolation. The record reveals a linear increase inannual temperatureour bank account balance between 1958 and 2010 by2.4±1.2 °C$500,000,000, establishingcentral West Antarcticaour bank account as one of the fastest-warming regionsgrowing globally.They should try the same thing with their bank account, but I don’t think it would pass the laugh test at their local bank.
I pist my pants really I did when I was reading the article. At first it’s a standard AGW propaganda peace but then when you look more closely you see so much stupidity that you can’t belief this is science but ya it still is called that way.
So I went on to find, I did not know what but I was searching the net for more.
I found this. I couldn’t find the link or this is the link but they replaced it whit a les dangers tekst.
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_22256350/ncar-study-west-antarctic-ice-sheet-warming-twice#ixzz2GFJBq100
Researchers have been unable in the past to make great use of readings from the Byrd Station, established in 1957, because of incomplete observations there because it has not been continuously inhabited.
A year-round automated station was put in place in 1980, but even that has been subject to frequent power outages, particularly during the extended polar night, when its solar panels are unable to recharge.
Interesting peach of studie.
First man him self need to look the thermometer to get the data. He could only do so a small amount of time because of the fact that the post is only inhabited when? Yes indeed the warmer period en that’s only a small period also. So the data range is very small. Take in consideration that the man properly was not that need whit data gendering en you find the dataset very unreliable.
But there is more.
In 1980 they have seen the light and found it better to stage a automated station. Unfortenetlie this one get is power from solar panels en guess what? They don’t work most of the year because of the leg of sun. And when is the sun not shining? Yes in winter.
So its clear that the data is only from the warm period. If you stick the ends to getter you will see automatically en increase of temperature because all the cool bits arnt there.
Then if you consider the fact that there could be some rumbling around AKA fudging the data you gen almost be clear that there is no warming at all but even a firm cooling instate.
Then in the Netherlands came the news that the UK metoffice came whit the prediction that 2013 will be 0,57 degrees warmer then this year.
Link. http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/news/releases/archive/2012/2013-global-forecast
So the alarmist make a joke off them selfs.
Sorry mist a peace A year-round automated station was put in place in 1980, but even that has been subject to frequent power outages, particularly during the extended polar night, when its solar panels are unable to recharge.
Am I right in surmising that this is the only station showing such warming? If so wasn’t this picked up on by the reviewers? If not is the journal using suitably qualified reviewers?