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
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 images… 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
wouldn’t 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 Gore’s 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 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?”
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:
“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.”
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.’ [“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.”] 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) :
Reuters…. Wilkins Ice Shelf hanging by a thread… “”
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.