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. 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 a 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, with the upcoming 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. 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. One was on Minna Bluff, one on the Plateau, one on the slope of Eribus. They were powered by the RTG (radiological thermoelectric generators) and the I was the Radiological Officer for the command. 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
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.